PDA

View Full Version : List of things no longer in D&D as of 4e



Valdar
06-08-2008, 12:05 PM
As I'm reading through the new books, I keep noticing stuff that's just gone. It occurs to me that having a distinct list to hand to players of previous games would be helpful. Not talking about things like Monk or Half-Orcs, which may appear later, but distinct things that are gone for good, like:

Spell levels as distinct from character levels
The "Neutral" alignment
Alignment restrictions on classes
Saving throws (now static defenses)
Lots of reasons to take AoOs (now grant combat advantage)
Vancian magic system all but gone (except for Wizard's daily power)
Losing Dex bonus to AC
Encumbrance
Rolling hit points
Race-specific deities
Multiclass levels
Arcane spell failure
Separate weapons for small characters
Magic ammunition
Separate game mechanics for turning undead, bull rush, grappling, etc.
Dying at -10 HP
Needing to identify magic items
Ability score damage such as poison
Ability score buffs like Bull's Strength
Save-or-die spells

Any others? I'll edit this post to include extra suggestions-

tesral
06-11-2008, 08:08 AM
As I'm reading through the new books, I keep noticing stuff that's just gone. It occurs to me that having a distinct list to hand to players of previous games would be helpful. Not talking about things like Monk or Half-Orcs, which may appear later, but distinct things that are gone for good, like:

Spell levels as distinct from character levels -- I don't like this. I like my spell levels I do.
The "Neutral" alignment -- They all need to go. Half measure.
Alignment restrictions on classes -- Along with the rest of alignment. However ethos restrictions are another matter.
Saving throws (now static defenses) -- I prefer saving throws. I see a definite difference between "I hit you" and "I need to get out of the way/resist/overcome"
Lots of reasons to take AoOs (now grant combat advantage) -- AoO is something I do without period.
Vancian magic system all but gone (except for Wizard's daily power) -- I am keeping my highly modified version. It's one of those things.
Losing Dex bonus to AC -- Eh? No more flat footed? I rather thought that a good idea.
Encumbrance -- Who kept track of that anyway? I can see it getting house ruled the first time someone tries to carry several tons of gear.
Rolling hit points -- Prefer to roll, said why elsewhere.
Race-specific deities -- I like those, consider them kept. The races without the numbers need their patrons.
Multiclass levels -- Never did that to start with.
Arcane spell failure -- Again, never did it to start with.
Separate weapons for small characters -- That is something I see the point for. Smaller races will have their weapons sized accordingly. Likewise larger races.
Magic ammunition -- No more +1 arrows? I'm stricken.
Separate game mechanics for turning undead, bull rush, grappling, etc. -- ! like turning undead. I simplified the hell out of it.
Dying at -10 HP -- Dead at 0 hit points in my game. But I give you half your Con in extra hit points.
Needing to identify magic items -- They all have labels now? That was part of the fun.
Ability score damage such as poison. -- I was liking that too.
Ability score buffs like Bull's Strength -- And this.
Save-or-die spells -- Those can be lived without in general.

Webhead
06-11-2008, 10:22 AM
Spell levels as distinct from character levels - I like this change. Why over-complicate things? The level you need to be to take a spell/power is the same as the spell's level.
The "Neutral" alignment - Not entirely certain on my take on the new alignments, but "Unaligned" pretty well fits the "Neutral" alignment niche.
Alignment restrictions on classes - Thank you.
Saving throws (now static defenses) - Logistically the same as Saving throws, but it reduces needed dice rolling and unifies the flow of combat by keeping the dice rolls in the hands of the attacker. Of course, I liked this ever since I discovered it in Star Wars Saga.
Lots of reasons to take AoOs (now grant combat advantage) - I don't know a lot about AoO's in 4e yet, so my verdict is still out on it. I didn't like them in 3e, but we'll see if they can change my mind.
Vancian magic system all but gone (except for Wizard's daily power) - I like it.
Losing Dex bonus to AC - Instead of losing your Dex Bonus to AC, the attacker gets a +2 to hit. Not entirely sure how I feel about this yet, but it does unify and speed up that aspect of combat, which has me in favor of it at the moment.
Encumbrance - Haven't gotten to Encumbrance yet, but simpler is better as far as I'm concerned.
Rolling hit points - I tend to be in favor of a set number of hit points at each level. With adding your Con score to hit points at first level and your Healing Surges being based on your class and Con modifier, there is enough random element to a character's ability to take punishment that I don't feel a "need" to roll hit points.
Race-specific deities - Racial deities are there, but they are not explicitly expressed as such. For example, the PHB makes clear that the Dwarves regard Moradin as their creator, but he is not explicitly known as the "god of dwarves". I like what I'm feeling with the subtle changes in their approach to the gods.
Multiclass levels - Haven't read up on the Multi-class Feats yet, but I would favor a "this is your primary class, but you can dabble in other things if you wish" over the open-season cherry picking of classes that 3e allowed.
Arcane spell failure - Just as well. I probably won't miss it.
Separate weapons for small characters - I did not like the "weapon-sizing" rules for 3.5 and am glad to be rid of them.
Magic ammunition - I'm not sure how I feel about this myself. On the one hand, individual magic ammo was a pain to keep track of, but I like the idea of "utility" arrows crafted with different effects.
Separate game mechanics for turning undead, bull rush, grappling, etc. - I like Turn Undead now. It is simple, yet still powerful. Haven't gotten to the combat maneuvers yet.
Dying at -10 HP - Thank you.
Needing to identify magic items - Haven't gotten to that yet. This may be something I will develop a house rule for. I always liked the mystery that surrounded a magic item's abilities.
Ability score damage such as poison - I liked the idea but hated the bookkeeping. I think the game is better off in the long run by removing this.
Ability score buffs like Bull's Strength - I think part of me will miss these, but like Ability Damage, the bookkeeping was not so much fun. I'll side in favor of this being removed.
Save-or-die spells - I very much like the direction they went with these kinds of powers. You now get several chances to resist being taken out by such effects and they are applied gradually.

Valdar
06-11-2008, 01:46 PM
--Spell levels are gone because there's not a common ability between classes. Well, there are, but they're treated as distinct powers. Call it de-normalizing the database- decreases storage efficiency to improve access speed.

--"Unaligned" is distinct from "Neutral" in that it's not an alignment. This matters when you say "A Paladin or Cleric cannot take a different alignment from their god"- this means that if your god is unaligned, you can have any alignment, and if you are unaligned, you can have any god.

--Encumbrance: Hard to say what they're saying here. As far as I can tell, the book says "here are the rules, ignore them unless someone's being silly".

--Identifying magic items: You can now figure out what they do by taking a rest period- this assumes you're dinking around with the thing to find out what it does. This was done to keep the DM from hearing "I hit a 31, plus whatever this sword does". For interesting magic items, look to Artifacts-these are intelligent magic items that have agendas that they try to convince you to follow, and get weaker or stronger depending on what you do. This is a lot more interesting to me than "guess the power".

--Bull's strength was often referred to as "complicate character" in my experience. Altering primary stats with cascading results over a whole character was clunky. Same goes for poisons reducing primary stats.

Webhead
06-11-2008, 02:25 PM
--Encumbrance: Hard to say what they're saying here. As far as I can tell, the book says "here are the rules, ignore them unless someone's being silly".

That's pretty much how I tend to handle encumbrance anyway. Casual weight carrying is not worth the effort, it's just when a character tries to explain that he's lugging around 10,000 gold pieces in an iron chest on top of platemail armor and a closet full of weapons that I whip out the encumbrance-bazooka and shoot them down.


--Identifying magic items: You can now figure out what they do by taking a rest period- this assumes you're dinking around with the thing to find out what it does. This was done to keep the DM from hearing "I hit a 31, plus whatever this sword does". For interesting magic items, look to Artifacts-these are intelligent magic items that have agendas that they try to convince you to follow, and get weaker or stronger depending on what you do. This is a lot more interesting to me than "guess the power".

This actually doesn't sound too bad. I'll have to look over the magic item rules more closely.


--Bull's strength was often referred to as "complicate character" in my experience. Altering primary stats with cascading results over a whole character was clunky. Same goes for poisons reducing primary stats.

Agreed. I would much rather have buffs and de-buffs affect the "end result" rather than affecting one of the "links in the chain". It's so much easier to say "Apply a penalty or bonus to certain rolls" than "Apply a penalty or bonus to a stat and adjust all related abilities accordingly".

Kilrex
06-11-2008, 03:17 PM
Agreed. I would much rather have buffs and de-buffs affect the "end result" rather than affecting one of the "links in the chain". It's so much easier to say "Apply a penalty or bonus to certain rolls" than "Apply a penalty or bonus to a stat and adjust all related abilities accordingly".

Bulls Str, is basically a +2 bonus to most melee attacks and damage, damage to thrown weapons and skills/checks requiring Str. Not too complicated. I mean I used to ride the short bus and I figured it out!

Webhead
06-11-2008, 03:46 PM
Bulls Str, is basically a +2 bonus to most melee attacks and damage, damage to thrown weapons and skills/checks requiring Str. Not too complicated. I mean I used to ride the short bus and I figured it out!

Sure. And I agree that we're not talking about advanced calculus or anything. Admittedly, I had almost forgotten that 3.5 changed the "random buffs" from things like Bull's Strength into a flat number which makes it easier to use. But rather than Bull Strength being "Gain +X to Strength", why not cut out the middle-man and just have the spell say "Gain +X to attack rolls, Strength skills and check, and to weapon damage"? That way, you get to the result without having to do all the work in the middle.

It's Occam's Razor: The simplest solution is usually the best.

Kilrex
06-11-2008, 05:10 PM
Sure. And I agree that we're not talking about advanced calculus or anything. Admittedly, I had almost forgotten that 3.5 changed the "random buffs" from things like Bull's Strength into a flat number which makes it easier to use. But rather than Bull Strength being "Gain +X to Strength", why not cut out the middle-man and just have the spell say "Gain +X to attack rolls, Strength skills and check, and to weapon damage"? That way, you get to the result without having to do all the work in the middle.

It's Occam's Razor: The simplest solution is usually the best.

Actually I had a player that was a Dwarf berserker cleric for a low fantasty game. The artifact weapon of his god required Str 15 to wield and his score was 12, so first round was Bull Str for the boost to be able to use the weapon. If he just had a +2 bonus to Str stuff and not the score itself he wouldn't be able to use the hammer.

ithil
06-12-2008, 12:23 PM
--"Unaligned" is distinct from "Neutral" in that it's not an alignment. This matters when you say "A Paladin or Cleric cannot take a different alignment from their god"- this means that if your god is unaligned, you can have any alignment, and if you are unaligned, you can have any god.

That's true for clerics (PHB p62), but paladins have to match on "unaligned" as well (p90). Curious.

Valdar
06-12-2008, 12:32 PM
That's true for clerics (PHB p62), but paladins have to match on "unaligned" as well (p90). Curious.

Curious indeed- I guess the "morally ambiguous Paladin" is still harder to achieve-

Valdar
06-12-2008, 12:44 PM
Anyway, more big omissions:

--BaB. All characters get +1 to hit every other level. Fixes the problem at the upper end of 3.5 and before where only fighters or other 1 BaB/level could hit anything.

--Skill points. Now you're trained or you're not. Same problem as above with 3.5 and before- you either max a skill or will fail at it every time at the higher levels. Skills are more versatile anyway, so having the right one isn't as crucial now.

Valdar
06-12-2008, 12:46 PM
Actually I had a player that was a Dwarf berserker cleric for a low fantasty game. The artifact weapon of his god required Str 15 to wield and his score was 12, so first round was Bull Str for the boost to be able to use the weapon. If he just had a +2 bonus to Str stuff and not the score itself he wouldn't be able to use the hammer.

In 4e, he'd be able to increase his strength every few levels with the free stat boosts. I didn't see anything that required Str that high anyway.

And, that tactic would have worked in 3.5, but sucked in 3.0- In 3.0, he could have rolled a 1 or 2 on the d4 for Bull's Strength and still not have been able to wield it.

ithil
06-12-2008, 12:53 PM
In 4e, he'd be able to increase his strength every few levels with the free stat boosts. I didn't see anything that required Str that high anyway.

I believe taking the plate proficiency requires 15 Str/Con (yet another reason you won't see wizards running around in plate).

ronpyatt
06-13-2008, 12:46 AM
Saving Throws are still in 4ed. They're just not used as often.

Valdar
06-13-2008, 01:02 AM
Saving Throws are still in 4ed. They're just not used as often.

They're almost a different thing now- you're talking about the roll to end a persistent effect? I could almost have expected them to call it something else, since it's not made at the time of the attack anymore.

ronpyatt
06-13-2008, 01:07 AM
They're almost a different thing now- you're talking about the roll to end a persistent effect? I could almost have expected them to call it something else, since it's not made at the time of the attack anymore.
Quite right. However, it made the Sleep spell something to contend with.

Engar
06-13-2008, 02:48 AM
I am still waiting for my books from Amazon (shakes fist)! I understood they eliminated gnomes and tweeked elves? This saddens me. If so, this a big "no longer there".

It frustrated me when 3.x made gnomes into halflings and halflings into kender. First, it was an unoriginal attempt to cash in on popularity. Second, it took away by raping gnomes and halflings of their history and unique culture. Don't get me wrong, make the rules better, tweek the system, do what works, but do not rewrite the story. I do not care if you think Dorothy should have been from Alaska or Alice met a cheshire dog, it was not written that way. It has nothing to do with playability and messing with them in the core books is like burning your old family albums and taking new pictures to replace them.

Maelstrom
06-13-2008, 04:47 AM
I am still waiting for my books from Amazon (shakes fist)!

Did you order the gift set (all 3 in a case)? If so, they bumped the shipment date to July just a couple days ago. I had that happen to me, which meant to get the books, I had to get the individuals, and it was too late to get the preorder 5% on them *grumble* I called and complained though and they gave me free 2 day shipping.



It frustrated me when 3.x made gnomes into halflings and halflings into kender.

To be fair, at least in the halflings case, the Tolkeinesque interpretation was getting them grief from the Tolkien family, so they had to change them.

Engar
06-13-2008, 05:32 AM
Eh, rotten kids. JRR would be disappointed. I do not think they have much to fear over a background originally published over 30 years ago, but fear of litigation and corporate cowardess has ruined bigger things.

tesral
06-13-2008, 08:07 AM
Eh, rotten kids. JRR would be disappointed. I do not think they have much to fear over a background originally published over 30 years ago, but fear of litigation and corporate cowardess has ruined bigger things.

Nothing keeps me from changing them back, not a bloody thing.

And we need a revision fo copyright. I see no reason that your grandchildren should get the rights to your life's work. Make the lazy bums write their own books.

Engar
06-13-2008, 09:50 AM
True, frustrating, but true. It gets to be an unnecessary challenge after ahwile though. I know this is fantasy, but adapting between systems constantly requires polymorphing races and creatures into other races and creatures. Even if you keep them the old way you have to adjust them for the surroundings and it is not just PC races. Look at Devils over the years, they changed in a lot more than name and were not the only creatures affected (yes they succumb to crazy, scary people who you might mistake for gamers with how much time they spend in ivory towers).

This change is just unecessary and counterproductive. You want to simplify and speed up game play? How does revisionist history help. To quote ol'Hillary (why not, I already eluded to religion and abstractly this is about race), "It requires the willing suspension of disbelief." In a game of imagination that is not good.

Valdar
06-13-2008, 11:23 AM
I am still waiting for my books from Amazon (shakes fist)! I understood they eliminated gnomes and tweeked elves? This saddens me. If so, this a big "no longer there".


Gnome, like Half-Orc, is not gone for good- we just don't know at this point when or where they will appear as a PC race. Current speculation is that Half-Orc will appear in the Forgotten Realms supplement, and Gnome is a contender for PHB2. It's all just speculation though.

This system of releasing core material episodically is getting them a lot of grief. Basically, they wanted 4e to have more quality control than 3e, so they're taking their time with all of the core material. Time will tell if this is a good idea, or if it backfires and book sales dry up before they get to Bard...

InfoStorm
06-13-2008, 11:25 AM
They're almost a different thing now- you're talking about the roll to end a persistent effect? I could almost have expected them to call it something else, since it's not made at the time of the attack anymore.


They have done 2 things with the traditional saving throws:
1. Now the attacker rolls your saving throw, not the defender. The percentages are still the same.
2. Now with the ability to make a save every round to a spell (let's say Hold Person) now statistically most spells will RARELY last more than 3 rounds, and 50% of them won't last past the target's first chance to save.

Personal Opinion: 1. Meh 2. Dislike, really shortens the effect of a lot of things.

Valdar
06-13-2008, 12:48 PM
They have done 2 things with the traditional saving throws:
1. Now the attacker rolls your saving throw, not the defender. The percentages are still the same.
2. Now with the ability to make a save every round to a spell (let's say Hold Person) now statistically most spells will RARELY last more than 3 rounds, and 50% of them won't last past the target's first chance to save.

Personal Opinion: 1. Meh 2. Dislike, really shortens the effect of a lot of things.

(1) I understand. People want to roll their Sleep spell attack, rather than saying "I sleep them" and have the DM roll their saves. I think they called it the "players roll the dice" philosophy.

(2) to me seems like they'd exhausted their complexity budget at this point, and needed to wrap up ongoing effects without making them any more complicated.

And, it's 55 percent, not 50- 10-20 is 11 outcomes out of 20, not 10.

Webhead
06-13-2008, 01:30 PM
(1) I understand. People want to roll their Sleep spell attack, rather than saying "I sleep them" and have the DM roll their saves. I think they called it the "players roll the dice" philosophy.

And coming from Cinematic Unisystem, I often (but not always) lean in favor of players rolling the dice. Cinematic Unisystem ran with the very cool idea (though optional, in case some GMs didn't want to use it) of making NPC stats static difficulty numbers rather than dice modifiers. I liked it very much. It keeps the GM's mind on getting into the character of the NPCs and focusing on any "special qualities", tactics or strategies that they have rather than worry about constantly rolling dice and tracking modifiers. Really speeds up combat and skill resolution. Plus, it makes it easier to gauge the relative difficulty of an opponent against the party as the GM knows and can adjust how likely it is for the PCs to overcome their enemies' abilities, be they physical, social, mental or otherwise.

I have yet to see its overall effect on the play of D&D 4e, but I'm hoping that does the same.

MooseAlmighty
06-13-2008, 10:23 PM
Did you order the gift set (all 3 in a case)? If so, they bumped the shipment date to July just a couple days ago. I had that happen to me, which meant to get the books, I had to get the individuals, and it was too late to get the preorder 5% on them *grumble* I called and complained though and they gave me free 2 day shipping.


Did they sell out of their first run or something? My gift set arrived today with the free shipping option (though just from Jersey to Maryland) (just in time for Fathers Day :D) However that was from an early Feb pre-order.

tesral
06-14-2008, 01:22 AM
(1) I understand. People want to roll their Sleep spell attack, rather than saying "I sleep them" and have the DM roll their saves. I think they called it the "players roll the dice" philosophy.

Except is isn't. It's attackers roll the dice. If the spell caster is an NPC hucking a firecube at you he rolls to see if you can get out of the way or not.

That just has a certain inelegance to me. If the action is my character, I.E. dodging an area effect, I should roll the dice. If the action is him doing something I.E trying to hit me, he should roll the dice.

It's a matter of feel not game mechanics. Sure the chances are the same, but it feels wrong to have the caster see if I resist the charm.

ithil
06-14-2008, 01:42 AM
If the action is my character, I.E. dodging an area effect, I should roll the dice. If the action is him doing something I.E trying to hit me, he should roll the dice.

Action is in the eye of the beholder. Is the orc trying to hit me, or am I trying to dodge or catch his blow on my shield? It'd be interesting to put the dice in the hands of the player whenever possible: give Attack Classes to monsters, Armor Bonuses to players, etc.

ronpyatt
06-14-2008, 02:03 AM
Opposed dice rolls might fix the problem about who should roll. Let them all roll! Then the dice rolls are the results of both the attacker and the defender doing something. This could be applied to attacks against AC, Fort, Reflex, and Will. Some games systems do this, but it increased the complexity a little too much during confrontations.

Really, I'd have to say "no" to that. Only one should roll the dice under most circumstances. Consistency is much closer to elegance than having to switch between the mechanics of perceived differences in attacks to determine who throws the dice.

If the attacker throws the dice for all attacks then it has a simplistic yet elegant symmetry to it.

Say! 4ed fix that.

Saving throws are the exception to the rule for exceptional circumstances. Sleep!

Aidan
06-14-2008, 02:11 AM
Another thing missing from D&D: blink dogs!

Valdar
06-14-2008, 11:41 AM
Except is isn't. It's attackers roll the dice. If the spell caster is an NPC hucking a firecube at you he rolls to see if you can get out of the way or not.

That just has a certain inelegance to me. If the action is my character, I.E. dodging an area effect, I should roll the dice. If the action is him doing something I.E trying to hit me, he should roll the dice.

It's a matter of feel not game mechanics. Sure the chances are the same, but it feels wrong to have the caster see if I resist the charm.

It's all pretty arbitrary though. So, you should roll your AC if you're relying on a dex bonus, but not if you're relying on an armor bonus? (You no longer get both, so the distinction can be made here). EDIT: Rather, you no longer get a bonus to AC from Dex or Int if you're wearing heavy armor, so you can still make the distinction between dodgers and blockers).

Valdar
06-14-2008, 11:44 AM
Another thing missing from D&D: blink dogs!

In fact, there is only one Lawful Good monster in the PHb1. Come to think of it, Monster Summoning is gone too, though they might have done that to reserve it for a specialized class like Illusionist.

Aidan
06-14-2008, 01:12 PM
I have also failed to find any references to familiars! I haven't played since "1st edition" so I don't know if those were still in 2 and 3.x, but I find it a rather glaring omission.

tesral
06-14-2008, 11:55 PM
Old Skool gamers.

agoraderek
06-15-2008, 12:04 AM
Old Skool gamers.

yeah, old skool! dude, remember when dice didnt come with fancy schmancy "precolored" numbers and you had to color in your own with a crayon? and pre painted minis? new fangled "computer cartography"???

kids and their crazy ways...

tesral
06-15-2008, 12:13 AM
yeah, old skool! dude, remember when dice didnt come with fancy schmancy "precolored" numbers and you had to color in your own with a crayon? and pre painted minis? new fangled "computer cartography"???

kids and their crazy ways...

One thing -- another thing. Change is not progress. It is change. Change will happen, progress does not necessarily happen.

I see much change in 4e. I have yet to see anything I can point to and say "that is progress".

3e there was much change, but I saw progress. Not in every system not in every idea, but there was progress.

Now I see little but change. Indeed they have changed so much that it is difficult to say if there is any progress. Lateral movement to be sure. I don't see any forward movement.

Indeed the mechanics are so different that it can be argued it isn't close enough to the old system to be called progressive at all. Lateral change. Change to something totally different.

agoraderek
06-15-2008, 12:26 AM
One thing -- another thing. Change is not progress. It is change. Change will happen, progress does not necessarily happen.

I see much change in 4e. I have yet to see anything I can point to and say "that is progress".

3e there was much change, but I saw progress. Not in every system not in every idea, but there was progress.

Now I see little but change. Indeed they have changed so much that it is difficult to say if there is any progress. Lateral movement to be sure. I don't see any forward movement.

Indeed the mechanics are so different that it can be argued it isn't close enough to the old system to be called progressive at all. Lateral change. Change to something totally different.

i can say this without much argument, i think: i could adapt, rather quickly, everything from 1st ed to 2nd ed to 3x as the systems came out, as they at least followed a basic structure in common (add a few feats here, throw in some skills there, maybe add a couple hit dice, voila, instant upgrade...). from what i can tell, this isnt going to be an easy thing with 4e. it seems they changed the whole paradigm.

i guess its like this, if 1st ed was a model T, 3x is a ferarri, and 4e is a fish, or something like that...

Engar
06-15-2008, 12:27 AM
LOL, I broke down and went and bought the 4e PHB. Read up through the first class. I agree with the assessment. This is 4e, not DnD. Different game. I hope I can find the receipt.

tesral
06-15-2008, 12:45 AM
i can say this without much argument, i think: i could adapt, rather quickly, everything from 1st ed to 2nd ed to 3x as the systems came out, as they at least followed a basic structure in common (add a few feats here, throw in some skills there, maybe add a couple hit dice, voila, instant upgrade...). from what i can tell, this isnt going to be an easy thing with 4e. it seems they changed the whole paradigm.

i guess its like this, if 1st ed was a model T, 3x is a ferarri, and 4e is a fish, or something like that...

Perzatally! Horse Model T, Model A, Ferarri, fish.

An upgrade is an improvment in an existing product. They tossed everything but the stats and the name. Lateral change, no progress.

So we can can call it 4e&e now.

Aidan
06-15-2008, 01:45 AM
Old Skool gamers.

Damn straight. At the last game, I pulled a pair of dice from my dice bag that were older than the DM.

Engar
06-15-2008, 01:50 AM
There is definitely a broken progression here. Something like Kirk to Picard to Archer to Denny Crane. The credits tell me it's the same guy from earlier, he is still a major player, he might even jokingly refence something like, "beam me up", but one of these things is not like the other.

Engar
06-15-2008, 01:58 AM
I can't use my original dice anymore. Too much of a pain to keep filling in the numbers since the indents are worn down. I never did use a second die for high/low though. I had a 20 sided with red numbers on one side, black on the other, and called high/low before rolling. That is really the only one that's a real pain to color. Believe it or not I never knew you were "expected" to color in the numbers, my dice all came with numbers and I did color them when they wore off, but I never had dice come "blank" like I hear people say. I could be a little young-school, lol.

tesral
06-15-2008, 01:59 AM
Damn straight. At the last game, I pulled a pair of dice from my dice bag that were older than the DM.

I like new dice too much. Rotate most of them every couple of years.

But I do have a few character sheets....

Engar
06-15-2008, 02:07 AM
Heh, I wish I kept more of those. I really wish I kept them every time a friend pulls them out from twenty years ago along with notes to show me stuff we did. It's like I came to play and forgot my sheet and dice.

tesral
06-15-2008, 02:32 AM
Heh, I wish I kept more of those. I really wish I kept them every time a friend pulls them out from twenty years ago along with notes to show me stuff we did. It's like I came to play and forgot my sheet and dice.

I have character sheets thirty two years old. I never throw anything away.

Farcaster
06-15-2008, 02:48 AM
I see much change in 4e. I have yet to see anything I can point to and say "that is progress".


An upgrade is an improvment in an existing product. They tossed everything but the stats and the name. Lateral change, no progress.

Tesral, just curious, I remember you saying there was no way in the nine hells you'd be picking up a copy of 4e. Did you change your mind? Have you read through books yet?

Maelstrom
06-15-2008, 06:42 AM
i guess its like this, if 1st ed was a model T, 3x is a ferarri, and 4e is a fish, or something like that...

Certainly, there were great changes, and 4e took a highly critical look at the direction 3.5 took, but I disagree that it is something else entirely.

Look back to Basic D&D and then look at 4e... they have a lot of common. A few simple rules define how the game is played. 3e went a long ways one way, then 4e shifted the direction, going back to the basics in some ways and pulling ideas from 3.5 that fit. For some, the magnitude of the change will put them off, for others it will invigorate their game (there are examples of both extremes in the posters of this board). Regardless, both directions will expand, one with WoTC and the fans that stick with their direction, and the other with the community of people that don't like the new direction.

Just as a side point here... it seems like the board is starting to have one of the problems we were having a couple months ago (every thread devolving into the same discussion, previously it was about WoTC being from the Abyss or something like that). Could we let those that want to discuss the merits and have an uplifting discussion about 4e do so in peace? :)

agoraderek
06-15-2008, 05:11 PM
Perzatally! Horse Model T, Model A, Ferarri, fish.

An upgrade is an improvment in an existing product. They tossed everything but the stats and the name. Lateral change, no progress.

So we can can call it 4e&e now.

i think it should be "1e WotC". this is the Wotc "D&D", this isnt gygax's game by a long shot. WotC had to do 3x the way they did it as it wasn't really "their" toy yet, and had they changed TOO much, they would have lost most of the old TSR faithful, who, iirc, were already apprehensive that the "magic the addiction" people were taking over.

so, what's REALLY missing from 4e D&D? anything gygax and arneson would have recognized...

Valdar
06-15-2008, 05:12 PM
Just as a side point here... it seems like the board is starting to have one of the problems we were having a couple months ago (every thread devolving into the same discussion, previously it was about WoTC being from the Abyss or something like that). Could we let those that want to discuss the merits and have an uplifting discussion about 4e do so in peace? :)

Agreed. It's pretty clear that there are those on this board that will hate everything about 4e on principle, so while it's been fun debating the merits of the changes, too much of it has been "I liked the way we do it in 3e, and I have nothing else to say to support that opinion".

Engar
06-15-2008, 07:12 PM
Poor spells... they did not have to die, they just had to be reigned in a little. Do you think they are in heaven with THAC0 now?

Someone mentioned Magic, well, I do kind of see tossing out a card that says, "Level 16 Utility Prayer: Angelic Intercession".

tesral
06-15-2008, 07:35 PM
Tesral, just curious, I remember you saying there was no way in the nine hells you'd be picking up a copy of 4e. Did you change your mind? Have you read through books yet?

I've read through the books and no I did not change my mind. I was given a bootleg. (Which I will not be sharing so no one can bother asking. Lizards security sucks.)

However I'll give anything a look before I trash it. I don't give opinions on things I have not read. It's not an upgrade, it's a sidegrade. Comparisons are nearly pointless as it isn't the same system as D&D.

My promise stands. I'll buy no new books from Lizards, ever.




Look back to Basic D&D and then look at 4e... they have a lot of common. A few simple rules define how the game is played.

By that critera Checkers and Go have a lot in common, a few simple rules define how the game is played.

Yet the games are vastly different. Why? The few simple rules are not the same simple rules.

jkfoote
06-16-2008, 01:07 AM
a difference in characters hat goes father then role playing

Webhead
06-16-2008, 03:48 PM
I have character sheets thirty two years old. I never throw anything away.

I don't have any RPG memorabilia that old (I've only been playing RPGs for 13 years), but I do still have the character sheet for the very first Star Wars RPG character I made some 12-ish years ago. I still pull it out and look at it from time to time. Ah, the days of using scissors, scotch tape and Xerox machines to copy pictures onto the "Character Portrait" space on the character sheet...:)

As to whether or not I feel 4e is just change or is actual progress, I'm really finding that it falls inbetween. More importantly, from my point of view, it is the change itself that has made me feel that the game is progressing.

There were manying things about the direction that 3e was heading (and even about the way 1e and 2e were designed and thus how they, perhaps subconciously, influenced 3e) that increasingly turned me off the game. I've had a love/hate relationship with D&D since I can remember. I find this was a "love the idea/hate the execution" type of thing. The best times I had with D&D was when the game was being played "fast and loose" with only surface level concern for the rulesy-ness. As long as the game felt fast, imaginative and fair, we were having a blast. Regardless of edition, there were times when this didn't happen. Rules took the front seat and I got turned off from the game.

IMHO, 3e didn't work for me. Somewhere (whether it was the fault of D&D, WotC or something else entirely) D&D became even more about putting the rules in the front seat. Not entirely that, but it became about making the rules very specific which meant "heavily detailed". The idea, I think, was that the more explicit the rules are, the more "consistent" the game will be, and the more consistent the game, the less arguements will occur. Too me, the cost of the increased time and itemization to play due to the rules-density was not equal to the rewards of "consistent" game play.

So, from my point of view, what was wrong with 3e? Too slow, too many rules and too many exceptions to those rules. So what would a new edition of D&D have to do to recapture my interest? Be faster to adjudicate, with fewer, more streamlined rules and less deviation from the core mechanics. Does 4e seem to do this? IMHO...yes. Is it an intrinsically better game than any previous edition of D&D for the average player? No. Is it intrinsically worse? No. It does, however, actually make me think that D&D could be fun again, and...to me...that IS progress.

Take from it what you will. Sure, it takes D&D down a different tangent than its predecessors. But, for me at least, I wasn't really seeing myself wanting to go down that old road, so, that a new road has opened up is worthy of attention if for no other reason than the fact that now there is potential where before I saw none.

My 2 cents. Don't spend it all in one place...

Valdar
06-16-2008, 04:45 PM
So, from my point of view, what was wrong with 3e? Too slow, too many rules and too many exceptions to those rules.

Completely the experience that I and just about everyone else I know has had with 3e. As far as I can tell, just about everyone on this board seems to think that 3e is unplayable as written- everyone not playing 4e now is sticking to 3e with the bad stuff houseruled out. If fixing broken games is your thing, then I can see the appeal of 3e, particularly if you've got a lot of time invested in making it work for your table.

I, on the other hand, want my game playable when I crack the book open. I'm not going to add any houserules to 4e, and I'll see how it goes. I want to be putting my creative energies towards engaging plots, villains the PCs will love to hate, awesome traps and other non-combat challenges, etc., not toward creating patches for legacy rules. If 4e turns out to be unplayable as written, then I'll keep looking for a game that isn't.

Engar
06-16-2008, 05:27 PM
Ah, the days of using scissors, scotch tape and Xerox machines to copy pictures onto the "Character Portrait" space on the character sheet...:)

In high school we used to go to the grocery store because they were one of the only places that had a copy machine (nickle a page and always needing change).


The best times I had with D&D was when the game was being played "fast and loose" with only surface level concern for the rulesy-ness.

Old DM quote when asked how the villain can do that (prevented teleporting in, knew we were there, got the monsters to work for him, ate the last donut)..."he combined spells". Everyone laughed and we got back to playing because the story was good.


IMHO, 3e didn't work for me. Somewhere (whether it was the fault of D&D, WotC or something else entirely) D&D became even more about putting the rules in the front seat. Not entirely that, but it became about making the rules very specific which meant "heavily detailed". The idea, I think, was that the more explicit the rules are, the more "consistent" the game will be, and the more consistent the game, the less arguements will occur. Too me, the cost of the increased time and itemization to play due to the rules-density was not equal to the rewards of "consistent" game play.

I second that. Stopping to check something is like flushing excitement down the toilet. I am also guilty and that may be the thing I had a hard time putting my finger on about a game that irked me. I also kind of assumed that since we were all older and played much less often with a new system (3.x) that we simply were less familiar with the rules and had to check them more. But I recall a lot of DM quick rulings in 2e and more tedious book checks in 3.x (because we knew there was info about grapple in the combat section, but which page again?). I think because it was there we had to find it.

Webhead
06-16-2008, 06:09 PM
In high school we used to go to the grocery store because they were one of the only places that had a copy machine (nickle a page and always needing change).

Yep. We payed a nickel a page too, but we would go the apartment manager's office to use their copier. At least it was conveniently located, even if it meant no copies after 6 pm. :)




Old DM quote when asked how the villain can do that (prevented teleporting in, knew we were there, got the monsters to work for him, ate the last donut)..."he combined spells". Everyone laughed and we got back to playing because the story was good.

Yes! Three cheers for GM improvisation! My typical response to inquiring players was, "You have no idea, but that sounds like a great subject to research". ;)


I second that. Stopping to check something is like flushing excitement down the toilet. I am also guilty and that may be the thing I had a hard time putting my finger on about a game that irked me. I also kind of assumed that since we were all older and played much less often with a new system (3.x) that we simply were less familiar with the rules and had to check them more. But I recall a lot of DM quick rulings in 2e and more tedious book checks in 3.x (because we knew there was info about grapple in the combat section, but which page again?). I think because it was there we had to find it.

I agree. Either out of curiousity or a need for "consistency", you look up rules because they are there. You know they are there and thus you feel that you should be using them. This becomes its own, consuming cycle. I'm not saying "rules are bad", but too many rules (or too much incentive for rules-referencing) can change the experience of the game.

Engar
06-16-2008, 06:33 PM
Just out out of curiousity, I wonder how it might go to put all the rulebooks away for an entire game. The DM would have to reference some materials of course, but not for "rules" per se. Nothing but quick judgements and consistency be damned, compare the calls between sessions. Don't know it, make it up, we're on a clock here...

Webhead
06-16-2008, 07:40 PM
Just out out of curiousity, I wonder how it might go to put all the rulebooks away for an entire game. The DM would have to reference some materials of course, but not for "rules" per se. Nothing but quick judgements and consistency be damned, compare the calls between sessions. Don't know it, make it up, we're on a clock here...

I've run games this way before, though not so much in recent years. They can be fun if you have the interest and trust of your players.

I prefer a "hands off the books" approach during the session. Before, after or during breaks, you can browse through books and that's fine, but I don't like to look up to see all my players browsing books mid-game perusing for cool new [insert game element here]. I find I occasionally break this rule myself though, especially when it comes to d20 games for some reason. It's much easier to avoid page-flipping when I'm running a non-d20 game...not sure why.

I always enjoyed playing by the "if you're not sure, make a decision and move on" style, but there are players that take notable (and vocal) objection to that. More so in recent years, I find. That's how I used to run the bulk of my early campaigns. We knew the core of the rules, so when in doubt, we made the most sensible decision and played it that way. If there was a question about it later, we would look it up later and decide if how we handled it was better or worse than going by the book.

If you haven't tried it, you should. It can be very liberating. But you have to have players who are willing to cooperate with you and not argue over every ruling the GM makes.

agoraderek
06-16-2008, 08:59 PM
I agree. Either out of curiousity or a need for "consistency", you look up rules because they are there. You know they are there and thus you feel that you should be using them. This becomes its own, consuming cycle. I'm not saying "rules are bad", but too many rules (or too much incentive for rules-referencing) can change the experience of the game.

i remember something gary gygax wrote way back in the day, in dragon magazine, to paraphraze "heck, WE dont even use weapon speed factors and to hit ac modifiers..."

i liked 3e because it integrated a bunch of stuff i had ALREADY house ruled, like, no level limits for demihumans, multiclassing, position oriented combat (sorry, LOVED the fantasy trip...), skills etc. i just ignored all the stuff that i didnt like.

and, like i said in a prior post: when i DM, im the rules supreme court, save the rules lawyering for the newbie dm...

Engar
06-16-2008, 09:08 PM
I forgot about level limits for demihumans (humanoids now)! Of course no one stopped a player from continuing with their beloved character, that was ridiculous. We used experience penalties after the "cut off" and no limits. And multiclassing was chosen at 1st level only (no humans allowed) and only in very specific combos by race. Ah, nastalgia...

agoraderek
06-16-2008, 09:25 PM
I forgot about level limits for demihumans (humanoids now)! Of course no one stopped a player from continuing with their beloved character, that was ridiculous. We used experience penalties after the "cut off" and no limits. And multiclassing was chosen at 1st level only (no humans allowed) and only in very specific combos by race. Ah, nastalgia...

you know the one thing i HATED about 3e was? fireballs. dude, one of the coolest things EVER in old school d&d was getting on the wizards butt for forgetting that casting fireball underground was generally a BAD idea...:lol:

Engar
06-16-2008, 10:28 PM
Or lightning bolt down a straight, dark, narrow passage... that thing goes forever and it can bounce man! It can bounce! In my experience it usually killed the mage first though.

Thinking of humans not being able to multi-class may be a "fairness" part of human paly only. For flavor, who else but someone living an already short life would be stupid, *cough*, er, courageous enough to adhere to a code that will probably kill them?

Gary could tell you for certain, may he rest in peace.

tesral
06-18-2008, 12:03 AM
Completely the experience that I and just about everyone else I know has had with 3e. As far as I can tell, just about everyone on this board seems to think that 3e is unplayable as written- everyone not playing 4e now is sticking to 3e with the bad stuff houseruled out. If fixing broken games is your thing, then I can see the appeal of 3e, particularly if you've got a lot of time invested in making it work for your table.

There is the old story of the linguistics professor who was giving his lecture on his pet theory of language. That in many cases language has a double negative that meant positive, or a positive negative that meant negative, but in no case did any language have a double positive that meant negative -- From the back of the lecture hall came clearly "yea, yea."

Or as a biologist in "Nature" put it, "A beautiful theory killed by a lousy little fact."

The fact is I have yet to meet, in flesh and blood, a DM that thinks that 3e is unplayable as you put it. I have also yet to meet a flesh and blood DM that is switching to 4e. There is obviously a good deal of enthusiasm for it on the forum. maybe a bit too much as it is sliding into censorship.

Go ahead, play your game, but be so kind as to not smear the joy of others. I am quite sure the flaws in the 4e system will shortly be rearing their ugly heads. No version of the game has been without them, and they made far too many changes to have escaped them. This is not to mention the already mentioned holes that have been noticed in the system as it stands and the very reason for this thread.

The truth of the matter, d20 scales poorly. You start to get over +10 and things slowly come apart. The problem is the d20 itself. An arithmetic scale of 1-20. All you can do is slide that scale up and down with pluses and minuses. But you can't get away from it.

fmitchell
06-18-2008, 02:03 AM
The truth of the matter, d20 scales poorly. You start to get over +10 and things slowly come apart. The problem is the d20 itself. An arithmetic scale of 1-20. All you can do is slide that scale up and down with pluses and minuses. But you can't get away from it.

One reason games like D6 and Fudge appeal to me is that their probabilities follow a rough bell curve.

With a flat probability, randomness often swamps the effect of skills. In d20, 5% of the time you roll a 1 (automatic failure and worse) and 5% of the time you roll a 20 (critical success); a roll against a constant target number succeeds a straight (21 + Modifiers - Target_Number) x 5% of the time ... so a target number of 10 greater than all modifiers is a 50/50 chance, and more than 20 greater than all modifiers is effectively impossible.

To me, a random factor clustered around an average level of performance makes more sense. Fudge is a prime example: its random factor ranges from +4 to -4, but is a rough bell curve centered around 0. A character can have a level 3 ability ("Superb" in Fudge, "Great" in FATE); usually (about 62% of the time) he performs at level from 2 to 4 (3 +/- 1). However, occasionally he does better or worse; about 1.2% of the time he gets extraordinarily lucky at level 7, and also 1.2% of the time he does horribly at -1. Some variations of Fudge, and the new version of Grimm, have a bell curve with an even narrower variance: a +/- 1 result occurs 99% of the time in Grimm on a straight roll (if my math is right).

(I originally listed GURPS, although it's problematic. It's based on 3d6, but it's a roll-under system, which means you're adding and subtracting a lot at the table; a roll-over system makes each adjustment either a bonus to the die roll or a bonus to the difficulty factor. Also in GURPS, because 17 or 18 always fails, skills greater than, say 20, make no difference unless you routinely want to succeed at trick shots or other insanely hard challenges.)

jkfoote
06-18-2008, 03:54 AM
a proper ogl

Shadow Dweller
06-18-2008, 08:35 AM
Oh, I forgot one! A fair number of the player base!!!

Webhead
06-18-2008, 09:06 AM
One reason games like D6 and Fudge appeal to me is that their probabilities follow a rough bell curve.

Yes, I too tend to prefer systems with a more "arched" probability curve when possible. The flat and wide probability of a d20 is fine if you're not thinking too hard about it, but it does lend itself to very spastic results.

tesral
06-18-2008, 09:59 AM
Yes, I too tend to prefer systems with a more "arched" probability curve when possible. The flat and wide probability of a d20 is fine if you're not thinking too hard about it, but it does lend itself to very spastic results.

Can, the greater the plus. You get the I can't miss syndrome or the I can't hit problem. You can state that 20 always hits and 1 always misses, but that generates a problem of it's own. You now have a, no matter the other odds, fixed 5% success/failure model built into the system.

My fix is the roll through. If you roll a 20 and cannot hit, roll again, if the resulting number (without additional bonuses) gives you success, you succeed. And just the opposite for I can't miss, a one is rolled roll through, if you roll low enough, you miss. This is not a perfect fix, but it overcomes the 5% problem.

It's an inhereant flaw in the system and hopeless, you either play the game and ignore it (which I usuall do) or you drive yourself nuts with it (today)

Valdar
06-18-2008, 10:08 AM
The fact is I have yet to meet, in flesh and blood, a DM that thinks that 3e is unplayable as you put it. I have also yet to meet a flesh and blood DM that is switching to 4e. There is obviously a good deal of enthusiasm for it on the forum. maybe a bit too much as it is sliding into censorship.


The trouble with talking about the rules with you is that we have a difference of opinion when it comes to what "as written" means (words you conveniently left out of your quote above). By this I mean use every rule- change none, ignore none. Every example I've seen given of something really broken about 3e is something you don't use. AoOs, Vancian magic, and Save or Die, from this very thread. It's great that you've put so much effort into creating a game system that works for you- but lots of people don't have this kind of time or inclination. Nor do we have players that will put up with too many rule changes. I'm sure your Fiat runs really well now that you've fixed and replaced half of it, but when it rolled off the lot, it was not a good car.



Go ahead, play your game, but be so kind as to not smear the joy of others.


Um, just about every thread about 4e here contains your posts about how bad of a game it is, whether or not that was the original purpose of the thread. Including this thread. You would do well to take your own advice.

Webhead
06-18-2008, 10:09 AM
It's an inhereant flaw in the system and hopeless, you either play the game and ignore it (which I usuall do) or you drive yourself nuts with it (today)

Yep. Besides, it's just a game. It's not like we're trying to delineate Quantum Theory or something. :)

tesral
06-18-2008, 10:20 AM
Every example I've seen given of something really broken about 3e is something you don't use. AoOs, Vancian magic, and Save or Die.

AoO: I don't use because the battlemat is not part of my game, not because I express great disapproval. It's impossible to adjudicate AoO without figures. Rather than try and figure it out is is easier to just drop it. Ask me again when I get a working game table.

I use the spell system but fold the Sorcerer and the Wizard into one class. I have since first edition. I have no great problem with the spell levels, spells per day or any basic structure except fire and forget.

Yea, we have a few save or die effects. I even have a few save AND die effects. Try falling off a cliff for example, or running into a cannon ball. Both generate vicious Fort saves to keep from dying outright, then you take damage. And dude, don't fail that save on the disintegrate.

Valdar
06-18-2008, 12:18 PM
AoO: I don't use because the battlemat is not part of my game, not because I express great disapproval. It's impossible to adjudicate AoO without figures. Rather than try and figure it out is is easier to just drop it. Ask me again when I get a working game table.



I also got rid of the AoO eventually, due to extreme hostility from my players (one sent me a rant longer than all the rules about AoOs combined, and she was the one with the PhD). But so much of the game is based on it- half the moves in the combat section provoke them, and it's the only mechanic in the game that allows the fighter to protect the wizard, even if it did come down to a game of Fantasy football.

They were clunky, they needed to go or get toned down. I'm glad they're toned down now in 4e, but I think I'd still have preferred "go".

InfoStorm
06-18-2008, 12:33 PM
About the old AoO rules we use are:
Leaving melee without tactically withdrawing
&
Doing something not Melee-ish when in melee range

Straight, simple and no matt needed. I even point out to players before they act, "That will open you up for attack."

Valdar
06-18-2008, 12:37 PM
For me, the battlemat is essential for players who forget where their characters are, or want me to forget (or just never specify). Everyone seems to want to stand just close enough to be part of the action, but far enough away to be perfectly safe. Now, my only reaction to "I wasn't that close to the chest" is to point at the map, where they've placed their mini at the ideal position for a first grab of the chest's contents.

Webhead
06-18-2008, 12:40 PM
They were clunky, they needed to go or get toned down. I'm glad they're toned down now in 4e, but I think I'd still have preferred "go".

Agreed. If we can't get rid of them altogether, they should at least be as simple and painless as possible.

I liked how Mutants & Masterminds removed AoO's from the game and did so by basically saying, "in the comics, heroes and villains are constantly attempting actions that would be considered extremely dangerous and, as such, a player should be encouraged to embrace their imagination try such actions, not punished by giving opponents [free attacks] any time they want to get courageous or inventive".

I like it.

tesral
06-18-2008, 02:07 PM
For me, the battlemat is essential for players who forget where their characters are, or want me to forget (or just never specify). Everyone seems to want to stand just close enough to be part of the action, but far enough away to be perfectly safe. Now, my only reaction to "I wasn't that close to the chest" is to point at the map, where they've placed their mini at the ideal position for a first grab of the chest's contents.

I do not argue the usefulness of minis and a map. I just don't have circumstance to clearly use one right now.

Webhead
06-18-2008, 02:41 PM
I also see the potential usefulness for a battlemap, but don't like the hassle and occasional restrictiveness of it.

Engar
06-18-2008, 02:50 PM
I finally skimmed the Pathfinder Alpha. I already have the 4e PHB, but have not canceled my 4e core book order from Amazon. Because I wanted to post here first. No other reason.

I like it and it is not even done yet. I will be tossing some cash at TSR, er...Paizo. If Gary rolled over when 4e came out he will rest easy soon enough. I know, that is a matter of opinion. Just sharing mine.

Webhead
06-18-2008, 03:02 PM
I finally skimmed the Pathfinder Alpha. I already have the 4e PHB, but have not canceled my 4e core book order from Amazon. Because I wanted to post here first. No other reason.

I like it and it is not even done yet. I will be tossing some cash at TSR, er...Paizo. If Gary rolled over when 4e came out he will rest easy soon enough. I know, that is a matter of opinion. Just sharing mine.

I'll take a look at it just out of sheer curiousity when I get home. I will reserve any judgement until then, but I'm keeping my expectations low, not for quality or effort on Paizo's part, but because I don't think it will be "different" enough from 3.5 to compel me.

Still, it might be an insightful and valuable read.

Engar
06-18-2008, 03:09 PM
It is close to 3.x.

Webhead
06-18-2008, 03:13 PM
It is close to 3.x.

And I've been trying to find a D&D that gets away from 3.X which is why Pathfinder may not be my "flavor". But I'll still check it out. I might learn a few surprising things.

agoraderek
06-19-2008, 12:59 AM
And I've been trying to find a D&D that gets away from 3.X which is why Pathfinder may not be my "flavor". But I'll still check it out. I might learn a few surprising things.

have you tried 2.0, circa 1989? ;)

jkfoote
06-19-2008, 01:03 AM
have you tried 2.0, circa 1989? ;)

Aw where rouges got XP based on the coinage the stole and got sole XP for traps, and everyone had their own XP progression.

You haven't experienced really DND till you've had to put up with THAC0

agoraderek
06-19-2008, 01:06 AM
Aw where rouges got XP based on the coinage the stole and got sole XP for traps, and everyone had their own XP progression.

You haven't experienced really DND till you've had to put up with THAC0

well, yeah. i started playing in 79, ad&d and basic. good times...

Engar
06-19-2008, 01:28 AM
We tried those xp systems about twice, once to test them, twice to say we gave them a second chance.

agoraderek
06-19-2008, 01:31 AM
honestly? i havent used xp at all since, oh, 8th grade. i just decided when the players leveled up after a reasonable amount of time and adventuring.

and im stll trying to figure out what was so difficult about AoO, wasn't rocket science...

jkfoote
06-19-2008, 02:18 AM
aw man i would hate playing without xp, it gives me such a feeling of accomplishment when I get those numbers. they make life worth living

Engar
06-19-2008, 02:22 AM
LOL, I still use xp. And at the end of every game I gave rp bonuses to xp where warranted.

jkfoote
06-19-2008, 02:28 AM
i always like that too, lets me know that im rping my guy right, sometimes i get caught on a very slippery slop

agoraderek
06-19-2008, 02:45 AM
ok, i admit it, i just hate math....

[edit] ...that doesnt have a $ in front of it...

tesral
06-19-2008, 08:20 AM
Apparently form reading of another thread something else is not in 4e. Quality manufacturing. Ink that smears on the page. That is no better than a weekly news magazine I plan to toss when I'm done with it. Sure, I've had a page of Time smear from a sweaty finger, but never a 35 dollar book.

Is this the future of Lizards, lousy workmanship too?

Webhead
06-19-2008, 12:00 PM
have you tried 2.0, circa 1989? ;)

Yeah, 2.0 core rulebooks is where I got my start in D&D. We had fun, but I'm sure more of that had to do with our being young, somewhat naive and being loose with the rules (we hardly ever consulted the books in-game...if something came up, we usually just made "ability checks"). We never used any supplement books until much later.

One of my favorite things from 2e was "kits". When 3e came along, I thought Prestige Classes would just kinda be "kits that you have to build up to". Strangely, I wasn't fond of Prestige Classes in 3e.

ryan973
06-19-2008, 12:37 PM
I actaully enjoyed prestige classes at first but i do think they made just going up in one class absolete. a 20 level wizard is great but nothing compared to a 20 level character with master of the seven fold veil and arch mage. I think that is the main reasone i like Pathfinder so much they made being a wizard or straight fighter an option for me again.