D&D 4th [Archive] - HERO Games Discussion Boards

Hugh Neilson

Jun 3rd, '08, 05:34 AM

On the bright side, this has a good chance of moving players to Fantasy Hero if it is handled well :)

Unfortunately, given D&D's place in the RPG pecking order, if D&D's popularity declines, the most likely result is all RPG's decline. Many, if not most, RPG gamers started with D&D - some liked the concept and found other games with the same concept. If D&D is horrid, the most likely result is players putting it on the shelf and playing Monopoly instead - a game they have heard of, not switching to other RPG's - which most of them will not be aware of.

Karmakaze

Jun 3rd, '08, 06:06 AM

I agree, Eosin, it really seems like a step in the wrong direction, they are Hasbro'ing D20, and I don't think it's a good move.

From a quality tabletop roleplaying experience perspective, I agree - it feels like a step in the wrong direction. On the other hand, for the purposes of obtaining a quality tabletop roleplaying experience, I've already walked away from D&D.

From a marketing perspective, though, there's some logic behind it. The tabletop audience is pretty well saturated at this point. The computer RPG market, however, isn't. So rather than trying to please the existing market, which will either buy anything called "Dungeons and Dragons" or are likely to resist changing their preferred system anyway, they're trying to draw from a new market by appealing to MMORPG players.

incrdbil

Jun 3rd, '08, 06:12 AM

So rather than trying to please the existing market, which will either buy anything called "Dungeons and Dragons" or are likely to resist changing their preferred system anyway, they're trying to draw from a new market by appealing to MMORPG players.

It's sort of like trying to get those who like to travel by airplane to instead take a a slower train by dressing the train up with awkward, airplane like bits, putting a stewardess on board, and having recorded plance noises broadcast through the train. These changes will just annoy those who like travelling by train, but really wont be enough to convince those who like planes that the train is now just the same.

mayapuppies

Jun 3rd, '08, 06:40 AM

It's sort of like trying to get those who like to travel by airplane to instead take a a slower train by dressing the train up with awkward, airplane like bits, putting a stewardess on board, and having recorded plance noises broadcast through the train. These changes will just annoy those who like travelling by train, but really wont be enough to convince those who like planes that the train is now just the same.
Greatest explanation of D&D 3.x as an RPG, ever...or, wait, are you describing D&D 4e as a video game? :hush:

incrdbil

Jun 3rd, '08, 06:44 AM

Greatest explanation of D&D 3.x as an RPG, ever...or, wait, are you describing D&D 4e as a video game? :hush:

Do I have to limit it to applying to just one situation? :)

mayapuppies

Jun 3rd, '08, 06:46 AM

It won't let me give you rep. :mad:

Eosin

Jun 3rd, '08, 07:01 AM

On the bright side, this has a good chance of moving players to Fantasy Hero if it is handled well :)

I think a fair number of fantasy RPGs stand to gain a shot in the arm. Even if 4E is successful there remains a fairly devoted 3.X crowd with $10,000 in sourcebooks. They will wind up with Pathfinder or some other variation of "not the worlds best selling RPG." Once a player walks on the dark side and stray from the official WOTC lines it isn't that hard to attract them to non-d20.

Unfortunately, given D&D's place in the RPG pecking order, if D&D's popularity declines, the most likely result is all RPG's decline. Many, if not most, RPG gamers started with D&D - some liked the concept and found other games with the same concept. If D&D is horrid, the most likely result is players putting it on the shelf and playing Monopoly instead - a game they have heard of, not switching to other RPG's - which most of them will not be aware of.

So, D&D is the gateway drug? :D

I don't think the immediate future holds a threat of D&D decline. I suspect that 4E will sell like wallbangers at least as long as we are at war and in a failing economy.

It would be nice if 4E created the perfect storm - disenfranchised a portion of its flock while attracting new blood into video/FRPG genre. The number of roleplayers would grow and the number playing non-D&D games would grow as well.

From a quality tabletop roleplaying experience perspective, I agree - it feels like a step in the wrong direction. On the other hand, for the purposes of obtaining a quality tabletop roleplaying experience, I've already walked away from D&D.

From a marketing perspective, though, there's some logic behind it. The tabletop audience is pretty well saturated at this point. The computer RPG market, however, isn't. So rather than trying to please the existing market, which will either buy anything called "Dungeons and Dragons" or are likely to resist changing their preferred system anyway, they're trying to draw from a new market by appealing to MMORPG players.

I agree and disagree. The disagreement is that there appears to be a strong movement towards an independent 3.X version of D&D. See above - that divorce could benefit all fantasy games. It isn't a given but there is a possibility.

I am quite interested to see what the next year to eighteen months holds for fantasy games.

JohnTaber

Jun 3rd, '08, 09:35 AM

I was a playtester for 4e and our whole group was very negative of the changes they made. Obviously, they wouldn't let our voice be heard before the game was released, but it's not D&D. It probably will be a fun RPG, but it is D&D no more.

The biggest thing is that every character plays the same and the game has a very very very bad healing mechanic.

Due to the NDA I can't really can't communicate my and my groups disgust with the new "Dungeons and Dragons".

Hi Gunstar: Can you talk openly after the release? If so I would really like to hear your opinions.

culhwch

Jun 3rd, '08, 10:05 AM

I think a fair number of fantasy RPGs stand to gain a shot in the arm. Even if 4E is successful there remains a fairly devoted 3.X crowd with $10,000 in sourcebooks. They will wind up with Pathfinder or some other variation of "not the worlds best selling RPG." Once a player walks on the dark side and stray from the official WOTC lines it isn't that hard to attract them to non-d20.

And it's not like 3.X is going away. The Pathfinder RPG looks much better than 4E.

I'm picking up 4E only because I'm trying to get a new group with some friends together who are die-hard D&Ders. I'll steer them towards Fantasy Hero ASAP, though. :)

Bismark

Jun 3rd, '08, 10:33 AM

And it's not like 3.X is going away. The Pathfinder RPG looks much better than 4E.

I'm picking up 4E only because I'm trying to get a new group with some friends together who are die-hard D&Ders. I'll steer them towards Fantasy Hero ASAP, though. :)

Oddly enough, although I was a keen player of OD&D and AD&D1 'back in the day' (I only played 2nd edn about 3 times as I was out of RPGing during most of that edition's 'lifespan'), I bought the core rulebooks for 3.5 mainly out of curiosity and also as a reference for when I am trying to get D&D types to play HERO - it give me a frame of reference to work with so I know 'where they are coming from', as it were.

I will probably get 4e for a similar reason (the game itself does not look like it will appeal to me at all - unless I know a really good GM that is running a game of it), and also because I work in publishing (typesetting and layout) and can count the rulebooks as a business expense (;):rolleyes::thumbup:).

I suppose the good news is that when I roll out a Forgotten Realms HERO campaign (hopefully next academic year) using mainly 2nd and 3rd ed. materials (apart from a converted Kara-Tur set) and play fast and loose with the 'canon',people will be less likely to be anally retentive about it after seeing what WOTC are doing with that setting :ugly:.

I will probably still check out Pathfinder though - just out of curiosity.

incrdbil

Jun 3rd, '08, 10:36 AM

And it's not like 3.X is going away. The Pathfinder RPG looks much better than 4E.

Someone explain this Pathfinder to me.

teh bunneh

Jun 3rd, '08, 10:42 AM

Someone explain this Pathfinder to me.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG

Markdoc

Jun 3rd, '08, 11:20 AM

From a marketing perspective, though, there's some logic behind it. The tabletop audience is pretty well saturated at this point. The computer RPG market, however, isn't. So rather than trying to please the existing market, which will either buy anything called "Dungeons and Dragons" or are likely to resist changing their preferred system anyway, they're trying to draw from a new market by appealing to MMORPG players.

Yep, and if you read the comments by Tycho and Gabe, on Penny Arcade, they make a big deal of (in a positive way) how much playing 4E is like playing a live-action video game.

Me, I don't care: I'd happily play 4E, since I already regard D&D as largely a tactical-scale fantasy wargame, with RP elements: we go to strange, exotic, haunting locales, kill the things that live there and take their stuff :D Along the way we build on our coolness* and try to spice our adventures with witty banter. I have other games for more of a RP element

cheers, Mark

*We'd make a great anime. We've got the bad boy scrapper in his scruffy leathers with a huge sword and white hair that falls down over one eye, the massive scarred bald warrior with an unrealistically huge hammer, the bishonen elf guy in his black plate, the gypsy girl with too much make up and jewellery and the hot elf chick with a bow :D Stereotyped? Us? :D

incrdbil

Jun 3rd, '08, 11:21 AM

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG

Interesting--a viable vehicle that gives those unsure about the new ediiton a reason not to go forward.

D&D has never faced that kind of challenge before.

Markdoc

Jun 3rd, '08, 11:22 AM

The biggest thing is that every character plays the same and the game has a very very very bad healing mechanic.

I do find it kind of weird that you heal people by hurting other people.....

cheers, Mark

incrdbil

Jun 3rd, '08, 11:23 AM

I do find it kind of weird that you heal people by hurting other people.....

cheers, Mark

You know, I don't think I want that one explained to me.

CandidGamera

Jun 3rd, '08, 11:41 AM

You know, I really liked D&D 4E ... when it was called HeroQuest. </David Spade>

teh bunneh

Jun 3rd, '08, 12:11 PM

You know, I don't think I want that one explained to me.

It sort of uses the DPS concept from MORPGs. Clerics have a special power that allows them (or their party) to regain HP every time they do damage to an opponent. Fighters have a mechanic in which they do damage to their opponents even when they miss.

For someone who never plays MORPGs (me!), it's pretty bizarre.

CTaylor

Jun 3rd, '08, 12:36 PM

The system has more or less abandoned the concept that while fantastic, the abilities and events should be plausible and reasonable within the setting. Now it's just "here kiddies, you can have fun! Use a red power once a day, use green power once a fight!"

NestorDRod

Jun 3rd, '08, 12:43 PM

So, at what point can you call BS on WotC and tell them it isn't a roleplaying game any more? :think:

incrdbil

Jun 3rd, '08, 12:49 PM

It sort of uses the DPS concept from MORPGs. Clerics have a special power that allows them (or their party) to regain HP every time they do damage to an opponent. Fighters have a mechanic in which they do damage to their opponents even when they miss.

For someone who never plays MORPGs (me!), it's pretty bizarre.

Wow.

I'm stunned by how much 'suck' is contained in that small summary of rules.

Dr. Confoundo

Jun 3rd, '08, 12:56 PM

You know, I don't think I want that one explained to me.

Well, it starts with the assumption that Hit Points aren't just Body or Stun: HP represent a wide range of factors that keep you fighting, including endurance and morale, as well as fully physical features. Getting attacked for 12 damage might just represent you getting progrssively more winded or fatigued, rather than actually getting injured; it might also be you getting distraught at your chances of success. Your last 15 hit points (or so) might actually represent taking Body damage - anything above that isn't 'actual' damage.

So in those terms, healing isn't just about restoring your Body - it's also about giving you a pep talk when you need it before the next monsters come down the tunnel, or by improving your morale by seeing your teammates smash the holy heck out of the opposition.

Theron

Jun 3rd, '08, 01:02 PM

So, at what point can you call BS on WotC and tell them it isn't a roleplaying game any more? :think:

When you believe you're that capable of speaking Ex Cathedra.

incrdbil

Jun 3rd, '08, 01:15 PM

So in those terms, healing isn't just about restoring your Body - it's also about giving you a pep talk when you need it before the next monsters come down the tunnel, or by improving your morale by seeing your teammates smash the holy heck out of the opposition.

So wow, they've even made hit points more of a silly abstraction than under prior editions.

mayapuppies

Jun 3rd, '08, 01:34 PM

I just looked over the characters for the World Wide Game day coming this weekend and, wow.

Each character has the ability to 'Heal' x amount of HP x times per day. This is over and above any clerics that are in the part. The example fighter has a base 28 HP and can regain 7 HP 10x/day...plus, they all have this 'Second Wind' ability that is only available once per day...not sure what that does, but it's listed right next to the HP recovery doohickey.

If you don't fight undead, clerics have become useless. or even if you do fight undead.

The thief..erm...rogue, has a Warlock spell called 'Eyebite' basically he gives the 'ol Stinkeye to someone which does psychic damage and makes him invisible to the targeted person.

Why does a rogue have a Warlock spell?

Susano

Jun 3rd, '08, 01:51 PM

NestorDRod

Jun 3rd, '08, 01:55 PM

When you believe you're that capable of speaking Ex Cathedra.

:confused:

What does papal infallibility have to do with the price of fish? :think:

Or is that some new game I haven't heard about? ;)

What I meant by my comment is that, the way it looks to me, D&D is morphing from being a roleplaying game into a game in which roleplaying may be done. There is, at least to me, a distinction between the two. :straight:

Dr. Confoundo

Jun 3rd, '08, 02:24 PM

So wow, they've even made hit points more of a silly abstraction than under prior editions.

Go back and look at 1st Ed AD&D - IIRC, it's pretty much the same as what I've described here about 4E... the only difference is that they've expanded on the concept of healing in the new ed.

Dr. Confoundo

Jun 3rd, '08, 02:31 PM

Each character has the ability to 'Heal' x amount of HP x times per day. This is over and above any clerics that are in the part. The example fighter has a base 28 HP and can regain 7 HP 10x/day...plus, they all have this 'Second Wind' ability that is only available once per day...not sure what that does, but it's listed right next to the HP recovery doohickey.

'Second Wind' lets you use a Healing Surge in the middle of combat. All other Healing Surges need to be used out of combat, unless somebody has a power that allows you to use one (like clerics and warlords).

If you don't fight undead, clerics have become useless. or even if you do fight undead.

And you say that like it's a bad thing. In previous versions, somebody always had to play a cleric, or else the game (and the characters) died quickly. Now, they've worked on removing that necessity. Having a Leader (cleric, warlord, bard) in the party will come in very handy, but it's not absolutely required, because everyone has some sort of ability to heal damage, even if it's just catching your breath between battles.

The thief..erm...rogue, has a Warlock spell called 'Eyebite' basically he gives the 'ol Stinkeye to someone which does psychic damage and makes him invisible to the targeted person.

Why does a rogue have a Warlock spell?

Without looking at him, I'd guess one of two things: He's a Half-Elf, or he took a multiclassing feat. Half-Elves are really versitile - therefore, one of their racial abilities is to choose an At-will ability from another class, and be able to use it once per Encounter.

Markdoc

Jun 3rd, '08, 02:32 PM

It sort of uses the DPS concept from MORPGs. Clerics have a special power that allows them (or their party) to regain HP every time they do damage to an opponent.

Ah! I don't play MORPGs, so I didn't know where that came from: I thought it was response to the cleric's lament "I can't use all these cool spells, because otherwise we'll have no healing! Waaah!"

cheers, Mark

Theron

Jun 3rd, '08, 02:37 PM

What I meant by my comment is that, the way it looks to me, D&D is morphing from being a roleplaying game into a game in which roleplaying may be done. There is, at least to me, a distinction between the two. :straight:

The key point is, at least to YOU it seems that way. Not to me. Not to lots of other folks. To me, it looks like you're setting up an artificially subjective criteria to justify a dislike of the game. I have a general dislike of blanket statements on subjects of taste. However, it's possible I'm misreading your intent as this is an imperfect medium for communication. If so, I heartily apologize.

Markdoc

Jun 3rd, '08, 02:37 PM

I just looked over the characters for the World Wide Game day coming this weekend and, wow.

Each character has the ability to 'Heal' x amount of HP x times per day. This is over and above any clerics that are in the part. The example fighter has a base 28 HP and can regain 7 HP 10x/day...plus, they all have this 'Second Wind' ability that is only available once per day...not sure what that does, but it's listed right next to the HP recovery doohickey.

If you don't fight undead, clerics have become useless. or even if you do fight undead.

Not really - because the amount of damage that you can mete out with combos has also increased and the intended number of encounters per day has increased also. These rules mean (just like WoW) that you can solo without a cleric, but that big raids are going to need a cleric (or three)

Why does a rogue have a Warlock spell?

Because it's cool! Duh! (OK, real reason? :D I'm guessing it's because thieves, sorry, rogues, can do something like this in WoW: they need to get invisible to flank and do mondo damage)

cheers, Mark

culhwch

Jun 3rd, '08, 02:45 PM

Dr. Confoundo

Jun 3rd, '08, 02:49 PM

Ah! I don't play MORPGs, so I didn't know where that came from: I thought it was response to the cleric's lament "I can't use all these cool spells, because otherwise we'll have no healing! Waaah!"

It's more this than what Rabbit said. DPS just means 'Damage Per Second' - anyone who attacks stuff (as opposed to getting attacked like a tank, or healing like a priest) can be considered a DPS class - some are better at it than others.

The ability in question lets a cleric do things other than just saving their spell slots for healing. I'd say that's a big plus.

Doug Limmer

Jun 3rd, '08, 06:57 PM

CTaylor

Jun 3rd, '08, 07:40 PM

the way it looks to me, D&D is morphing from being a roleplaying game into a game in which roleplaying may be done.

Sure, the game has a lot more in common with Heroquest (as mentioned earlier) or Warhammer Quest than an RPG. You can role play in them, but that's not really what it's about.

And Doug: what makes you think people have not looked at the previews and information yet? Please don't presume malice or stupidity just because you disagree with someone. They're clearly pushing this game toward MMOGs and MMOG players. That is, as I stated earlier, a very strange place to go.

Sketchpad

Jun 3rd, '08, 08:30 PM

[Paints a Target on His Chest]

I don't mind the 4th ed stuff. I'm not much off a MMORPGer, but I kind of like some of the ideas they're going with. Mind you, I would prefer some more build-style rules, allowing players/GMs to create additional material with a structured function, but, IMHO, it could be much worse :) Of course, YMMV :D

As for this relating to Hero, again, I think there are some ideas that could be easily transferred to Hero for a FH campaign. Particularly the idea of "powers/abilities" that are more limited in a campaign scope rather than a mechanic one. For example, I've considered making some abilities that could enhance a profession:

Whirling Blade
Type: Town Hero, Swordsman
Skill: Sword Play (DEX-Based)
Effect: +1d6 HKA w/ Sword, AE Radius
Uses: 3/day

Build
4 Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand +1d6; 3 Charges (-1 1/4), OAF (Sword; -1/2), Requires A Sword Play Roll (-1/2), Gestures (-1/4) [3]
56 Area Of Effect (up to 5" Radius; +1), Selective (+1/4) for up to 45 Active Points of Spin Attack 6

Effectively, the ability is limited by profession and could be seen as a Talent or Ability of that particular vocation.

As for it feeling a bit more like a mini game, what does it need to allow a player to play their character?

Eosin

Jun 3rd, '08, 08:59 PM

It's kind of amazing how much conclusion-jumping is going on in this thread. I'm not a big supporter of D&D 4e (I'm neutral to it, really), but it's getting bashed by people who don't really have true information on the game. Go look at the previews that Wizards has up (they have quite a few by now), and see for yourself what it's like. Don't rely on biased reports saying "it's just like a MMORPG now!"

My opinion? It's a game that has evolved from the original D&D, and has many things in common with it, but it is not the same game as, say, 1st edition AD&D. That doesn't make it good or bad, or better or worse, just different.

I have plenty of information -- I can see that it has borrowed some MMORPG elements but then the two sorta feed each other in some strange incestuous dance. The game seems designed to be unappealing to me irregardless.

My Desires:
Stimulationist
Infrequent Magic
Human Centric Games

4E Concept
Substantially more gamist
The absurd level of magic has been taken away from items and invested into the character (now I can't just exclude a few classes (even write my own non-magical classes) and exclude most magic items).
The game maintains its focus on monster bashing as the primary form of opposition.

Does my evaluation seem right to you? If it is wrong then I may need to go back and take a second look but judging from reviews, previews, and the reports of the ungagged playtesters that I think the evaluation is fairly accurate.

Lord Mhoram

Jun 3rd, '08, 09:54 PM

Why does a rogue have a Warlock spell?

As recall the rogue is a half-elf whose racial ability is able to take an ability from any class.

I've read through the PH and some of the DMG, and to be honest, I am more excited about it than Hero 6th. Yeah, I know - heretic.

I get a really strong OD&D 1st ed AD&D vibe from 4th. They give you combat rules where anyone can do stuff and leave the roleplaying to the GM and players... really a lot like Hero if you didn't have disads. :)

And the second wind ability from healing surges - think Inigo after he got knifed. It emulates that kind of thing really well.

For me D&D is the simple game I'm going to play when I don't want to deal with the complexities of Hero. :) Plus I love learning and tinkering with systems, and here is a new system to learn and master... Woohooo!

Lord Mhoram

Jun 3rd, '08, 09:58 PM

Does my evaluation seem right to you? If it is wrong then I may need to go back and take a second look but judging from reviews, previews, and the reports of the ungagged playtesters that I think the evaluation is fairly accurate.

That is a fair summation. It is much more gamist than 3rd or 2nd. And yeah if you want low magic where characters don't do much, D&D is definitely not for you. I love high fantasy (heck I run my Fantasy Hero games at 250 points) so I really like the default approach.

I also like to have my fantasy taverns look like the cantina from star wars. D&D will do this well. However it would be really easy to make D&D very human centric.

Inu

Jun 3rd, '08, 10:12 PM

That is a fair summation. It is much more gamist than 3rd or 2nd.
I wouldn't even say it's more gamist; I'd say it's more honest about its gamism. All the past editions were full of '1/day', '3/day', 'unlimited, but only once a fight' abilities. The new edition, it seems to me, is just codifying that stuff... as well as overhauling the healing system so that it actually works with the abstraction of hp all along -- IE, not needing healing spells to recover one's confidence (one of the elements of hp since 1st ed).

D&D has always been gamist over simulationist. If someone's looking for simulationist, like Eosin, then they probably never wanted to play D&D at all. If the new system can be CONSISTENTLY gamist, without totally abandoning any link to simulationism, then I'll probably enjoy it more than ever.

Eosin

Jun 3rd, '08, 11:11 PM

D&D has always been gamist over simulationist. If someone's looking for simulationist, like Eosin, then they probably never wanted to play D&D at all. If the new system can be CONSISTENTLY gamist, without totally abandoning any link to simulationism, then I'll probably enjoy it more than ever.

I enjoyed Birthright. :thumbup:

Doug Limmer

Jun 4th, '08, 04:49 AM

And Doug: what makes you think people have not looked at the previews and information yet?Mostly because some people have been saying exactly the same things that were complained about months ago on the D&D Discussion Boards, when little concrete information was known about the game. It almost seemed as if I had fallen through at time warp.

If you don't like what you see in the game, there's more specific content available to rail against now. :)

Lord Mhoram

Jun 4th, '08, 06:50 AM

I wouldn't even say it's more gamist; I'd say it's more honest about its gamism. All the past editions were full of '1/day', '3/day', 'unlimited, but only once a fight' abilities. The new edition, it seems to me, is just codifying that stuff... as well as overhauling the healing system so that it actually works with the abstraction of hp all along -- IE, not needing healing spells to recover one's confidence (one of the elements of hp since 1st ed).

Good points.

I love the new healing system, personally. With HP being abstracted that way (or again, being explicitly defined as abstracted that way), you can get effects like:
A bunch of demoralized soldiers about to quit completely exhausted then the captain gives a rousing speech "Come on you devil dogs", and they charge the hill. A warlord using an ability to let allies use healing surges.
Or the character is feeling demoralized and doesn't feel he can win the fight and gets in a really good shot, and realized he can win (The fighter healing surge when he hits an opponent)
Or someone else on the team feeling that way, and seeing the fighter in the group do something so amazing that it inspires him to extra energy and enthusiasm (a teammate hits someone you get a healing surge).

When you can mentally fold your head around the idea that HP cover health, endurance, attitude and such, healing surges really make sense, and can work for great roleplaying. :)

NestorDRod

Jun 4th, '08, 07:11 AM

The key point is, at least to YOU it seems that way. Not to me. Not to lots of other folks. To me, it looks like you're setting up an artificially subjective criteria to justify a dislike of the game. I have a general dislike of blanket statements on subjects of taste. However, it's possible I'm misreading your intent as this is an imperfect medium for communication. If so, I heartily apologize.

No, it's all right. I personally dislike D&D because I feel that it is becoming (if not already there), a game in which roleplaying is done as opposed to a RPG, but I don't claim that to be more than my personal opinion, and I apologize if my statement implied it was more than that.

So, not being a D&D-phile, I'll graciously back out of the thread and let y'all continue with your discussion.

Dr. Confoundo

Jun 4th, '08, 07:31 AM

No, it's all right. I personally dislike D&D because I feel that it is becoming (if not already there), a game in which roleplaying is done as opposed to a RPG, but I don't claim that to be more than my personal opinion, and I apologize if my statement implied it was more than that.

I don't see how this edition is any more or any less of an RPG than the older editions. D&D has never had role-playing hard-wired into character generation (like HERO or GURPS do); it's always been somewhat of an afterthought* rules-wise.

*Not that there's anything wrong with that.

NestorDRod

Jun 4th, '08, 07:48 AM

I don't see how this edition is any more or any less of an RPG than the older editions. D&D has never had role-playing hard-wired into character generation (like HERO or GURPS do); it's always been somewhat of an afterthought* rules-wise.

*Not that there's anything wrong with that.

True. Of course, I have gotten into some rather heated discussions with folks when I make that statement. ;)

And you're right. If that's what you want out of your game, there's nothing wrong with that.

I guess my discontent stems from the fact that, despite the fact that roleplaying is not its focus, D&D is still considered the representative system for RPGs. :(

And I said I would shut up. Shutting up now. :o

Dr. Confoundo

Jun 4th, '08, 07:50 AM

I guess my discontent stems from the fact that, despite the fact that roleplaying is not its focus, D&D is still considered the representative system for RPGs. :(

The best thing isn't always the most popular thing. And vice versa.

Theron

Jun 4th, '08, 08:18 AM

The best thing isn't always the most popular thing. And vice versa.

Absolutely. And sometimes you need a hammer, and sometimes you need a screwdriver. Thing is, I've played in Hero System games that were of the "count every hex, calculate every modifier" tactical exercise that seems to be D&D's norm these days. I've also played in D&D games where we didn't roll a die for hours because we were relying entirely on role play.

I'll agree that there's a lot in 4th edition I don't recognize as part of my personal vision of D&D. But there's a lot of ways in which I'm looking forward to it. Right now, my only regular gaming fix is a weekly D&D game that is, by the necessity of scheduling, VERY gamist in outlook. We tend to do more roleplaying via email during the week than we manage at the table (we only have three hours each week of table time, and there can be as many as nine players, counting the GM). A lot of the new stuff in D&D looks really interesting from the perspective of someone who likes playing "tanks" and wants more options without having to wait until 15th level to get them.

(On the other hand, right now, we're playing a game set in Sharn from the Eberron setting that I dearly wish was using Fantasy Hero instead of 3.5)

sbarron

Jun 4th, '08, 09:38 AM

I love the new healing system, personally. With HP being abstracted that way (or again, being explicitly defined as abstracted that way), you can get effects like:
A bunch of demoralized soldiers about to quit completely exhausted then the captain gives a rousing speech "Come on you devil dogs", and they charge the hill. A warlord using an ability to let allies use healing surges.
Or the character is feeling demoralized and doesn't feel he can win the fight and gets in a really good shot, and realized he can win (The fighter healing surge when he hits an opponent)
Or someone else on the team feeling that way, and seeing the fighter in the group do something so amazing that it inspires him to extra energy and enthusiasm (a teammate hits someone you get a healing surge).

When you can mentally fold your head around the idea that HP cover health, endurance, attitude and such, healing surges really make sense, and can work for great roleplaying. :)What about when I hit you in the head, from behind, with my ax, to start combat? Is that simulated well? Maybe only if I'm a rogue? I guess getting killed before the fight even starts isn't very heroic or fun...

Ok, I'm being sarcastic. But this whole model of taking damage, dealing damage, and healing damage just seems bizarre to me. Is it me, or does it seem to be designed to keep fights going longer? I can't see how that's a good thing...HERO has long been the butt of all jokes because of its lengthy combats. Maybe D&D 4th wants a shot at the title?

In a MMORPG, keeping fights going means making more money. What does it mean in a table top game?

Dr. Confoundo

Jun 4th, '08, 09:44 AM

In a MMORPG, keeping fights going means making more money. What does it mean in a table top game?

More opportunities to have your character do cool stuff?

Old Man

Jun 4th, '08, 09:57 AM

You know, it's really amusing that hit points, that artifact of Chainmail's miniatures gaming roots, are still going strong thirty five years later with all these ludicrous contortions to try and have them still make sense. At this point they might as well start calling it 'morale'.

incrdbil

Jun 4th, '08, 10:26 AM

In a MMORPG, keeping fights going means making more money. What does it mean in a table top game?

that the description of a 4e game session should be done in 'leet' speak?

Lord Mhoram

Jun 4th, '08, 10:40 AM

More opportunities to have your character do cool stuff?

My thoughts exactly.

You know, it's really amusing that hit points, that artifact of Chainmail's miniatures gaming roots, are still going strong thirty five years later with all these ludicrous contortions to try and have them still make sense. At this point they might as well start calling it 'morale'.

To a point yes. Hit points have always been this nebulous "Luck and cunning and will to live and body mass ect" but weapons were just physical damage. Now they made the damage from weapons, and the healing system use the same abstractions hit points do. It's consistant at least.

And morale is part of hit points - when the Warlord uses his ability that lets others "heal" themselves with a healing surge - a solid SFX for that is an inspiring speech. :)

I actually like it.

teh bunneh

Jun 4th, '08, 10:50 AM

I remember, back in the days when AD&D 2nd edition came out, I was reading the chapter on rolling your stats. They had (IIRC) a sidebar titled something like, "This character is useless!"

The gist of it was that you could create interesting and playable characters who had only so-so stats. It talked about how you could take that 14 and put it into your INT, giving you a young, not-great-but-potentially-promising wizard. Or put it into DEX and you've got a quick-on-his-feet young thief, or into CHA and you've got a friendly, jokesy bard. And that 6 you rolled? There's all sorts of stuff you could do with it -- your wizard might be heavyset and kinda slow (DEX), your bard might be a fun guy but sort of dense (INT), your thief might be spry but scrawny (STR).

Man, it was just a short paragraph, a quick aside, but it was a revelation to me. Spending time coming up with a background and personality that explained why your stats were the way they were? Gaming could be about more than just being the toughest/smartest/strongest badass in the world? There was still plenty of room to play "Ultimate Badass," but now... now it wasn't required. Wow. It was a revolutionary concept at the time (at least, to me).

I don't know. All this emphasis on Cool Stuff(tm) and Awesome Powers(tm) seems like a step backwards, to me. But obviously, I'm not their core audience anymore.

incrdbil

Jun 4th, '08, 10:56 AM

My thoughts exactly.

And morale is part of hit points - when the Warlord uses his ability that lets others "heal" themselves with a healing surge - a solid SFX for that is an inspiring speech. :)

So, a person can be brought back from a really horrible state by inspiring speech. So, logically, a really scary speech should lower the morale of a target. So I can see some class or ability that lets you literally talk someone to death.

Thats it, sign me up for the Politician Class! :)

Beware my Vorpal +5 Straw Man Argument, and my deadly +3 Retort of Wounding!

teh bunneh

Jun 4th, '08, 10:58 AM

So, a person can be brought back from a really horrible state by inspiring speech. So, logically, a really scary speech should lower the morale of a target. So I can see some class or ability that lets you literally talk someone to death.

Thats it, sign me up for the Politician Class! :)

Beware my Vorpal +5 Straw Man Argument, and my deadly +3 Retort of Wounding!

I would play that game. ;)

Lord Mhoram

Jun 4th, '08, 11:12 AM

So, a person can be brought back from a really horrible state by inspiring speech.

Considering it isn't even seen as having taken physical damage until you lose half your hit points (a state called "Bloodied") yeah.

We've seen it in movies - the platoon is tired, weary, and can't go on anymore, they can barely move. Then the sgt gets up and makes some sort of amazing speech, and they find the energy to charge. The D&D healing structure allows that kind of thing - something D&D never could model before. :)

I understand you don't like it, and some of the assumptions can lead to real silliness (I love the politician class idea), but I think it is the best version of D&D. And I've played every one (although I didn't play much of 2nd I hated that version).

sbarron

Jun 4th, '08, 11:56 AM

More opportunities to have your character do cool stuff?...while fighting. Virtua Fighter 2 didn't hassle me with that roleplaying non-sense, either. Stun Palm of Doom! Is that what you mean by "cool stuff?"

Susano

Jun 4th, '08, 11:58 AM

See, in Hero it would be Aid to END & STUN, Incantations ("Who wants to live forever?").

NestorDRod

Jun 4th, '08, 12:11 PM

See, in Hero it would be Aid to END & STUN, Incantations ("Who wants to live forever?").

Or you could add Gestures, for pulling back the charging handle on your firearm.

<CHIK> <CHAK> "Let's rock."

:D

Dr. Confoundo

Jun 4th, '08, 12:13 PM

...while fighting. Virtua Fighter 2 didn't hassle me with that roleplaying non-sense, either. Stun Palm of Doom! Is that what you mean by "cool stuff?"

If you don't like fighting stuff, don't play RPGs where fighting stuff happens.

Stun Palm of Doom sounds like what monk characters have been doing since 1st Edition AD&D. It's a good idea if every class had cool options like that.

mayapuppies

Jun 4th, '08, 12:14 PM

D&D4e = Tabletop Dungeonsiege

Now with more and improved Cool Moves(tm)

D&D4e; Tastes Great. Less Filling.

mayapuppies

Jun 4th, '08, 12:15 PM

I give it a hard time, but I am seriously interested in it as a replacement for Warhammer Fantasy.

NestorDRod

Jun 4th, '08, 12:15 PM

D&D4e = Tabletop Dungeonsiege

Now with more and improved Cool Moves(tm)

D&D4e; Tastes Great. Less Filling.

:rofl:

Lord Mhoram

Jun 4th, '08, 12:39 PM

I give it a hard time, but I am seriously interested in it as a replacement for Warhammer Fantasy.

It would make a very good Tabletop tactical game.

It's like D&D returned to it's roots- Chainmail/ OD&D (white box). Part of the reason I like it. I know, given the way the wife and I game, there will be amazing amounts of roleplaying, tied to a really nice tactical tabletop game. :)

Old Man

Jun 4th, '08, 01:08 PM

To a point yes. Hit points have always been this nebulous "Luck and cunning and will to live and body mass ect" but weapons were just physical damage. Now they made the damage from weapons, and the healing system use the same abstractions hit points do. It's consistant at least.

It's consistent all right. It's pretty easy to achieve consistency with a term that is devoid of any and all meaning.

Lord Mhoram

Jun 4th, '08, 01:12 PM

It's consistent all right. It's pretty easy to achieve consistency with a term that is devoid of any and all meaning.

:)

Someone on another board described hit points as the amount of plot immunity you have. Thought that funny. :)

incrdbil

Jun 4th, '08, 01:21 PM

Considering it isn't even seen as having taken physical damage until you lose half your hit points (a state called "Bloodied") yeah.

We've seen it in movies - the platoon is tired, weary, and can't go on anymore, they can barely move. Then the sgt gets up and makes some sort of amazing speech, and they find the energy to charge. The D&D healing structure allows that kind of thing - something D&D never could model before. :)

So if the player role plays out a really inspiring speech..the GM should then award out hit points? :think:

::brings the collected works of shakespeare to the table.::

Now, I will be..Invincible!

Lord Mhoram

Jun 4th, '08, 01:23 PM

So if the player role plays out a really inspiring speech..the GM should then award out hit points? :think:

::brings the collected works of shakespeare to the table.::

Now, I will be..Invincible!

One of the classes has a power that gives other healing surges. One SFX that you can apply to that is an inspiring speach.

And turn to Henry the 5th for the Inspiring speech section. It has a number of them. :)

Susano

Jun 4th, '08, 01:23 PM

So if the player role plays out a really inspiring speech..the GM should then award out hit points? :think:

::brings the collected works of shakespeare to the table.::

Now, I will be..Invincible!

Yeah, "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers..." out to be enough to get a whole army up to full HP.

Dr. Confoundo

Jun 4th, '08, 02:02 PM

So if the player role plays out a really inspiring speech..the GM should then award out hit points? :think:

::brings the collected works of shakespeare to the table.::

Now, I will be..Invincible!

If your class has that ability, why not? In 3rd Edition, Bards could cast healing spells... sounds like a perfect way of explaining it.

incrdbil

Jun 4th, '08, 02:11 PM

If your class has that ability, why not? In 3rd Edition, Bards could cast healing spells... sounds like a perfect way of explaining it.

Let me clarify. I said that if the payer makes an inspiring speech, the GmMshould award hit points under this logic. However, using that explanation, that effect should happen regardless of if he's taken any mechnical ability by the rules to permit this.

Or is the ability to make inspring speeches based on class now? Talk about 'roll' playing.

Dr. Confoundo

Jun 4th, '08, 02:35 PM

Let me clarify. I said that if the payer makes an inspiring speech, the GmMshould award hit points under this logic. However, using that explanation, that effect should happen regardless of if he's taken any mechnical ability by the rules to permit this.

Or is the ability to make inspring speeches based on class now? Talk about 'roll' playing.

If it works for the game, and the other players approve of it... Sure, why not?
But if the player wants to do it on a regular basis, he should probably have some sort of mechanical reasoning on why he can do something like that, like a Multiclassing Feat or something.

Would you give HERO characters access to a power that they don't have just because their player came up with a cool role-playing reasoning for why they should have it? I would. Would you let them do it on a regular basis without paying points for it?

incrdbil

Jun 4th, '08, 02:54 PM

Would you give HERO characters access to a power that they don't have just because their player came up with a cool role-playing reasoning for why they should have it? I would. Would you let them do it on a regular basis without paying points for it?

Well, in HERO, we don't confuse inspiring speeches with healing magic.....

Hugh Neilson

Jun 4th, '08, 03:02 PM

Well, in HERO, we don't confuse inspiring speeches with healing magic.....

Unless the character buys "Inspiring Speech: Healing with Incantations". Hero is all about divorcing mechanics from SFX, isn't it?

Lord Mhoram

Jun 4th, '08, 03:07 PM

One of the classes has a power that gives other healing surges. One SFX that you can apply to that is an inspiring speach.

And turn to Henry the 5th for the Inspiring speech section. It has a number of them. :)

Yeah, "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers..." out to be enough to get a whole army up to full HP.

Great minds and all that.... :)

Inu

Jun 4th, '08, 04:35 PM

:)

Someone on another board described hit points as the amount of plot immunity you have. Thought that funny. :)
I like to call it 'ablative dodging'. That's cool too, though. =)

Inu

Jun 4th, '08, 04:40 PM

It's consistent all right. It's pretty easy to achieve consistency with a term that is devoid of any and all meaning.
Naturally. As are most RPG's versions of hp. BODY isn't especially realistic or meaningful, either -- it's not like being hit by the third sword is any more likely to kill you than the first two, other than to increase bleeding. STUN, meanwhile, is a similar mishmash of things... and makes about similar sense.

Hit Points give you certainty in combat. If I have 30-odd, I know that, barring some unlikely circumstance, I can't be killed in one hit. This is a good thing for some players, not so good for others. If BODY and STUN are good for you, woot. It hit points work for you, yay. If you can slide between both depending on what game you're in, then you're pretty flexible. But I don't see how either is inherently more realistic/enjoyable/meaningful. =)

CTaylor

Jun 4th, '08, 05:14 PM

Mostly because some people have been saying exactly the same things that were complained about months ago on the D&D Discussion Boards, when little concrete information was known about the game.

Given that is true, is it not possible that this is being said because, you know, the initial sense and feeling of the game was correct?

it's not like being hit by the third sword is any more likely to kill you than the first two, other than to increase bleeding

I wouldn't suggest you try that theory out in real life.

Inu

Jun 4th, '08, 06:00 PM

I wouldn't suggest you try that theory out in real life.
I wouldn't suggest you try it out with one sword, eitehr.

CandidGamera

Jun 5th, '08, 07:36 AM

I'm picking up the three core books for 4th on Sunday. I've been reading all the previews and snippets and reviews.

I really think it's a board game with optional roleplaying now. I think the design influence of that board game is World of Warcraft - probably because the D&D MMO failed and the guys at the head office wanted to better "Actualize our potentialities" or something.

It seems like it would be a fun board game - but it has almost nothing of what I consider the essential elements of D&D - the things which have kept me playing D&D for 20 years now.

Disturbingly, GMs are encouraged to end campaigns with a "Destiny Quest" for players who achieve 30th level, with the goal being divine ascension. Hearkening back to the days of Basic D&D there, I suppose, with the difference being that there aren't any Immortals rules to continue play afterward.

Even more disturbingly, there's apparently a section in the DMG that gives guidelines for playing without a Game Master - the most damning sign of all that it's become a board game.

I'm very glad Paizo has decided to continue supporting and updating D&D 3.5 - I really feel that that edition is the pinnacle of this particular RPG.

Dr. Confoundo

Jun 5th, '08, 08:44 AM

It seems like it would be a fun board game - but it has almost nothing of what I consider the essential elements of D&D - the things which have kept me playing D&D for 20 years now.
People keep saying things like that, but I just don't see it. Mind expanding on what those essential elements are?

incrdbil

Jun 5th, '08, 08:54 AM

Diamond_J

Jun 5th, '08, 09:04 AM

4E seems to be moving in the opposite direction of what I want in an RPG. It is less simulation and more abstractions that emulate video games. It is more about roles than characters and characters are more about special abilities than qualities. I'll probably read it but the game doesn't seem to have anything to offer me.

D&D has allways been more about roles then characters.
When has it not? The rules facilitate this, allways have and allways will.

It's a class level based hit point system, the same as 3.5, 3rd & 2nd edition. The only difference is that the wizard doesn't get a big veiny shaft up the poop shoot.

I've demo'd D&D 4th ED, the first module with pre-generated characters.
Every one of my friends thinks it's light years better then 3.5. One member of my group didn't want to try the new system because he hated previous D&D incarnations with the burning fire of 1 000 000 exploading suns. He walked away wanting to buy the core rule books! It's a solid system.

Myself, I refused to run 3rd or any incarnation of long ago because the system was a huge cluster "F". Trust me 4th is better hands down no arguement holds up againsts this, no comparison.

It's up to the GM to make the game more then just tabletop minitures. If you have a good GM there realy should be no problem running a fun game, and it will allso be balanced for a change.

Diamond_J

Jun 5th, '08, 09:19 AM

Something just struck me. Maybe Kevin Siembieda isn't so crazy after all. By engaging in creative inertia, and refusing to adapt and not improving on the system..it can be said Palladium Fantasy now might be a better RPG than the game it initially was a weak clone of, simply by 4e D&D's backslide.

The triumph of creative stagnation? :p

What are you saying? Kevin Siembieda isn't so crazy after all?
Is he sharing his crack harness with you?

(Siembieda's Crack harness: inside gamers joke, a reference to the Juicer of RIFTS fame. The Palladium system is seen as undescriptive and combersome. Creator and head designer Kevin seimbieda has added strange and ubtrusive rules; such as a huge bonus to save vs pain for women only, contradicotory bursting rules, poor lifting and damage ratios, and MDC)

Diamond_J

Jun 5th, '08, 09:33 AM

People keep saying things like that, but I just don't see it. Mind expanding on what those essential elements are?

1. An intense crippling fear of change.
2. The need to uphold nostagia with the rule of an iron fist
3. The desire to complain freely and openly on the internet
4. A biological urge for wizards to be made of tissue paper
5. The ability to fluke role obsene characters.
6. The bliss of pouting when one doesn't role an obsene character.
7. All level one characters must suck and be no fun to play
8. A weesle should be able to leap through the chest of a pesent (2 HP)
9. The Gm must shed tears trying to put together a game
10. Mountain due and Cheetos.

There, does that itinerize everything for you. It's all sooo clear :nonp:
D&D 2nd edition is the greatest system of alll tiiiiime:drink:

incrdbil

Jun 5th, '08, 09:33 AM

I'm going to repeat a comment made on a much older thread when the first preview book for 4e came about. I think I should package it up as the first players guide to 4E.

If I had to play 4th edition D&D, my character will, just for the fun of it, go into random taverns yelling "PL me plz", and if he joins a group, merely halt at the dungeon entrance and leech off XP till kicked from the group. I'll then send snarky bluebook messages till the global ignore command is used, thus fully recreating the type of play the makers of D&D are seeking to emulate.

Thematically, I'm suprised GM's wont be asked to charge payers a monthly subscription fee for campaigns.

Dr. Confoundo

Jun 5th, '08, 09:39 AM

If you have so little interest in 4E, why do you keep posting about it?

incrdbil

Jun 5th, '08, 09:48 AM

If you have so little interest in 4E, why do you keep posting about it?

General Gamer conversation? After all, D&D used to be the flagship game for RPG's, and it still is a major player in the gaming industry. The decay of such a storied system is a subject of consideration to those interested in roleplaying gaming in general. The focus of the market selection of the game, and how that has influenced the rules and the very premise of the playing experience is worth discussion.

Dr. Confoundo

Jun 5th, '08, 09:51 AM

Susano

Jun 5th, '08, 09:55 AM

Ok, then say something about that, rather than "4E IS TEH SUXXOR!!!".

Okay...

H3R0 IS TEH HAXXOR!

:D

Diamond_J

Jun 5th, '08, 10:07 AM

General Gamer conversation? After all, D&D used to be the flagship game for RPG's, and it still is a major player in the gaming industry. The decay of such a storied system is a subject of consideration to those interested in roleplaying gaming in general. The focus of the market selection of the game, and how that has influenced the rules and the very premise of the playing experience is worth discussion.

I would humbley suggest you stop using here-say and try the system at least once for yourself.

It doesn't hold much weight for your counter disscussion when you have no experience with the system what so ever. If then and only then you don't like 4th ED, I'll concied the argument to your behalf. After all it's very different form 3rd and I'm sure it wont be everybodies cup of tea.

However, the good news is there are hundreds of supliments for 3rd which you can now buy on the cheap, so many you would and could never use them all. Honestly what was left to release for the 3rd edition?

mayapuppies

Jun 5th, '08, 10:25 AM

I'll actually be playing in the World Wide Game Day on Saturday (got me an RPGA number and everything). I'm doing so to prove that I will, indeed, be playing Dungeonsiege on the tabletop rather than a PnP RPG.

I actually hope I enjoy it, because I need a less financially challenging strategy game than Warhammer Fantasy that also includes army list advancement capabilities through experience.

Dr. Confoundo

Jun 5th, '08, 10:41 AM

incrdbil

Jun 5th, '08, 10:42 AM

It doesn't hold much weight for your counter disscussion when you have no experience with the system what so ever. If then and only then you don't like 4th ED, I'll concied the argument to your behalf.

Why would you concede the argument then? I'd only be reflecting my experiences and opinion, which still would vary greatly from yours. No need to concede anythign on your behalf, and I'm not looking for a concession anyway. If you play the game, I hope you have a blast doing it, and don't mind me if I prefer other systems.

I mean, I already dislike hit points, armor class, feats, classes, and levels. I don't think 4e's going to do much about that.

mayapuppies

Jun 5th, '08, 10:58 AM

Have fun, but I have a feeling that you'll just come out validating your preconceived notions. Demo games like that don't tend to emphasize the same things that you could easily draw out in your home game.
Well, actually, that's exactly what I want from it. :)

I already have an RPG that let's me design characters exactly the way I want them and customize the game world to my vision, I certainly wouldn't want to replace it with a game system that is inherently restrictive.

But I do need a new strategy game, and everything I've been hearing, reading and observing is telling me that I have finally found a strategy game that fits the criteria in my 'Strategy Game Wishlist' almost perfectly. :celebrate

Saturday will either prove or disprove this, I'm rooting for proving.:thumbup:

xenobrain

Jun 5th, '08, 11:02 AM

I give it a hard time, but I am seriously interested in it as a replacement for Warhammer Fantasy.

I can't figure where you're coming from. If you're talking about the wargame, D&D 4e could work I suppose, but if it's the Roleplaying game, I just can't see it. WFRP and D&D are on opposite ends of the Roleplaying spectrum.

Edit:: you pretty much posted the answer while I was asking the question :)

And as for D&D's viability as a strategy game, our group pretty much played it as one. Five players controlled three characters each, and they proceeded to mow down countless hordes of monsters and take their stuff. I was coerced into running the game, and from my perspective and feedback from the players, it was smooth, fast and fun.

Bookkeeping is hell when you're tracking initiative and hitpoints for 40-50 characters on the battlemat, and mass combat rules may have been helpful, but the the fact is the game just runs DAMN fast! And such massive scale battles are quite doable, and run fast enough that the players didn't get bored. There was only a shred of Roleplaying here and there, but with 15 players characters it just wasn't feasible to have very much.

Some things we did to run things as quickly as possible:
1. Prerolled monster initiative. Done before game and during breaks. Monsters numbers assigned by initiative (ie monster 1 goes first, monster 2 goes second), players have the order they go in (ie the rogue has 15 on his character sheet, the fighter 8) on the top of their character sheets.

2. Players must be ready to go. Rule lookups must be done before their turn comes around, they have 15 seconds to complete their turn or it's forfeit. I made photocopies of the quickstart rules for everyone so it was really, really quick.

And interestingly, that was our first 4e game ever. I had a "what's new and different in 4e" lecture before game, but the changes were simple enough that there were very, very few rule lookups during game by anyone.

Overall, yea, 4e is a good wargame if you intend to couple it with some dungeon crawling and *gasp* some actual roleplaying. Yes, the nature of the character effectively means you can't create exactly what you want, and their personality isn't represented on the sheet either, but hey, you can always talk. And 4e actually has a decent conversational skill check system in place now (One guy in our group got his books early).

HERO and GURPS are my choices for smaller, roleplaying focused games. But D&D does what it sets out to do, and very well at that.

incrdbil

Jun 5th, '08, 11:39 AM

Well, actually, that's exactly what I want from it. :)

I already have an RPG that let's me design characters exactly the way I want them and customize the game world to my vision, I certainly wouldn't want to replace it with a game system that is inherently restrictive.

But I do need a new strategy game, and everything I've been hearing, reading and observing is telling me that I have finally found a strategy game that fits the criteria in my 'Strategy Game Wishlist' almost perfectly. :celebrate

Saturday will either prove or disprove this, I'm rooting for proving.:thumbup:

I suggest checking into confrontation..though maybe the D&D miniatures combat game is what you are looking for. *

*That's actually a different game from 4E, just for clarification :)

mayapuppies

Jun 5th, '08, 12:07 PM

I suggest checking into confrontation..though maybe the D&D miniatures combat game is what you are looking for. *
I gots the 3.5 version of D&D miniatures and loved the potential for this game. I'm thrilled that they've made a rules expansion for it...erm...yeah, I mean, um, they made 4th edition D&D.
*That's actually a different game from 4E, just for clarification :)
Liar. 4e is just a fancy way of saying 'Rules Expansion for D&D Miniatures. :D

CTaylor

Jun 5th, '08, 02:18 PM

If you don't like fighting stuff, don't play RPGs where fighting stuff happens

That's a false dichotomy, at no point did he imply that he didn't like combat, he simply pointed out that the game was being reduced to combat, with all special abilities combat-oriented.

I wouldn't suggest you try it out with one sword, eitehr.

I was being serious. If you somehow are of the opinion that being hit several times with a lethal instrument is no more likely to kill you than being hit once, I would strongly advise you avoid combat at all costs.

If you have so little interest in 4E, why do you keep posting about it?

Defensive, much? We get it, you love D&D.

Have fun, but I have a feeling that you'll just come out validating your preconceived notions.

That can work two ways...

Here's the thing: Making 4th edition a board simulation of MMOG's won't necessarily make it any less fun, it might even attract new players. I just think it is a really weird, retrogressive way to approach the matter, and they're obviously dumbing it down as much as possible.

Using colors to designate what powers do what is like handing players a big fat red pencil so they can't choke themselves on it or break it and end up with a jagged end. Role Playin Gamers are not, even as a minority, of average or below average intelligence.

Old Man

Jun 5th, '08, 04:28 PM

Myself, I refused to run 3rd or any incarnation of long ago because the system was a huge cluster "F". Trust me 4th is better hands down no arguement holds up againsts this, no comparison.

It's not hard to believe that 4th is superior to previous editions.

It's up to the GM to make the game more then just tabletop minitures. If you have a good GM there realy should be no problem running a fun game, and it will allso be balanced for a change.

Of course it helps if the GM isn't saddled with a system that encourages bizarre behavior by the characters.

Karmakaze

Jun 6th, '08, 06:47 AM

Well, in HERO, we don't confuse inspiring speeches with healing magic.....

PRE Attacks... ;)

(Presence linked to Healing...? ;) )

incrdbil

Jun 6th, '08, 07:27 AM

PRE Attacks... ;)

(Presence linked to Healing...? ;) )

Another strength of the HERO system..we could do it..if we really wanted to, but its not hardwired in :)

mytrustyd20

Jun 6th, '08, 08:40 AM

I played 4e a week or so ago...in that module that just came out "Darkwood Tower" or "Elderdark Scar" or "Midnight Legion" or whatever the heck they named it.

I've been playing D&D in all its forms for a couple of decades now and, though I've been moving towards Hero, I still have a warm fuzzy for D&D.

My experience with 4e confirms that it will make a nice, casual board game. It did not, in any way, feel like D&D. Here are several remarks overheard by the players:

"This wizard is just an archer. It's the most boring magic slinger I've ever had"
"Why did they keep the same names for things and change the definitions? This spell..."Magic Missile"...is nothing like magic missile".
"4E is fun but it's not any faster to play than 3.5"
"It seems like all we do now is deal damage and we're all doing about the same amount".

Make no mistake-we had a lot of fun. Our GM had a great time as well. However, I couldn't shake the feeling that I was playing Heroscape or some kind of simple miniatures "skirmish" game.

Even the two "4e cheerleaders" in our game seemed a little let down by actual play.

Playing 4E is the straw that broke the camel's back-I'm moving my guys to (Fantasy) Hero full time.

BlackSword

Jun 6th, '08, 09:43 AM

Let me clarify. I said that if the payer makes an inspiring speech, the GmMshould award hit points under this logic. However, using that explanation, that effect should happen regardless of if he's taken any mechnical ability by the rules to permit this.

Or is the ability to make inspring speeches based on class now? Talk about 'roll' playing.
No more so than in Hero where you have a PRE score. Do characters with a PRE of 5 strike fear into opponents when they make a very intimidating speech? Its trading one mechanic for another, in Hero characters buy PRE (or not) depending on how much their personality can effect those around them. In 4th a particular class (or cross-class with the multiclass feat) can affect those around him. I could recite MLK's "I have a dream" word for word but I doubt I would move as many people as he did. In Hero he has higher PRE score than me, in D&D he is a different class than me.

Lord Mhoram

Jun 6th, '08, 10:01 AM

In Hero he has higher PRE score than me, in D&D he is a different class than me.

Now I have an image of MLK as a Cleric/Warlord. :eg:

BlackSword

Jun 6th, '08, 10:16 AM

Now I have an image of MLK as a Cleric/Warlord. :eg:
He was a minister.

Lord Mhoram

Jun 6th, '08, 11:47 AM

He was a minister.

Hence the cleric. :)

Markdoc

Jun 6th, '08, 11:50 AM

He was a minister.

I'm not familiar with that prestige class: what's the progression like?:eg:

cheers, Mark

mayapuppies

Jun 6th, '08, 11:53 AM

CTaylor

Jun 6th, '08, 12:05 PM

I don't know but I suspect that 4th Edition is probably suffering from the "must balance all classes" syndrome of MMOGs. The reason it is important in a MMOG is that there's virtually no role playing content or way to balance out things by GM fiat or control of the scenario. In a role playing game you have all that, and even the weak character class can shine based on how the GM runs things.

bitter thorn

Jun 8th, '08, 09:15 PM

Oddly enough, although I was a keen player of OD&D and AD&D1 'back in the day' (I only played 2nd edn about 3 times as I was out of RPGing during most of that edition's 'lifespan'), I bought the core rulebooks for 3.5 mainly out of curiosity and also as a reference for when I am trying to get D&D types to play HERO - it give me a frame of reference to work with so I know 'where they are coming from', as it were.

I will probably get 4e for a similar reason (the game itself does not look like it will appeal to me at all - unless I know a really good GM that is running a game of it), and also because I work in publishing (typesetting and layout) and can count the rulebooks as a business expense (;):rolleyes::thumbup:).

I suppose the good news is that when I roll out a Forgotten Realms HERO campaign (hopefully next academic year) using mainly 2nd and 3rd ed. materials (apart from a converted Kara-Tur set) and play fast and loose with the 'canon',people will be less likely to be anally retentive about it after seeing what WOTC are doing with that setting :ugly:.

I will probably still check out Pathfinder though - just out of curiosity.

The slaughter of the Forgotten Realms probably turned me off even more than the dumbed down rule mechanics of 4E. All I can do is vote with my dollars. WotC has lost my rather significant business. I see no reason to tolerate a mediocre system if they are going to destroy my favorite setting.

Nolgroth

Jun 8th, '08, 09:34 PM

Slaughter of the Forgotten Realms? Some big event I missed, or just the gradual effect of entropy on the setting?

mayapuppies

Jun 8th, '08, 09:36 PM

Mystra already blew up all over the world, what else are they doing to it?

incrdbil

Jun 9th, '08, 06:25 AM

All I can do is vote with my dollars. WotC has lost my rather significant business. I see no reason to tolerate a mediocre system if they are going to destroy my favorite setting.

Broavo. From everything I've read, a move ot Fantasy HERO does a world of good for the Forgotten Realms, a setting certainly more worthy than the current system it suffers.

mayapuppies

Jun 9th, '08, 06:53 AM

incrdbil

Jun 9th, '08, 07:25 AM

While I certainly prefer a game world that doesn't have hot and cold running magic items in every household, I do remember some very good games using a variety fo systems in Forgotten realms. I'll second incrdbil belief that Hero system would certainly do it far better than D&D, particularly 4e.

That was the thing about the Realms, it had a pace for everyone. Our first games were centered squarely in the Moonshae's, where magic itmes didn't abound..though the mystic nature of the area was well done.

Our most treasured magic item till about 10th level was or Unquenchable Mug. Put an ordinary, non-magical beverage in it, and it would never empty until you deliberately turned it over. It was amazing the uses we got out of that minor item.

My group always enjoyed the Forgottne Realms,,probably because I was the only person who had ever read many of the novels. when people talk about being burned out, or being 'overshadowed' by high level NPC's, it seemed mainly to come from reading too many of the novels, or all of the source materials. My players occassionalyl heard stories of far off adventurers, but in their neck of the woods, they were the heroes of the day. No problems at all.

I'm sort of curious to see what sort of mal-treatment the realsm are getting under 4e. Of course, that means some of the more recent 3e stuff should be going for cheap......

Nolgroth

Jun 9th, '08, 08:47 AM

To this day, my favorite setting is the Duchy of Daggerford as described in Under Illefarn. Certainly no magical sinks and water heaters there.

I own most of the original "splat" books on the individual sections of the Realms and I do not recall magical sinks described anywhere either. That must have come later or something.

Mostly, I pull out my vast collection of Realms maps and make it up as I go. They are absolutely beautiful maps that still stand up nearly two decades later. In fact, I prefer them to the newer maps that I have seen. I got a couple of the Heartlands that were done in a new style and they just don't seem as awesome to me.

All this talk of D&D4 and Forgotten Realms really makes me want to play fantasy again. Just with HERO instead of D&D.

Eosin

Jun 9th, '08, 09:09 AM

Lord Mhoram

Jun 9th, '08, 09:33 AM

On the realms...

Didn't they advance the timeline by about a hundred years and kill off a huge numbers of movers and shakers? I think mages died in droves with the Spellplague.

Just tidbits that I have read.

Yeah, that is what I read.
And Elminster doesn't dare ues his magic because there is something about other voices in his head that come out when he does (speculation is that they are some of the dead gods).

Another God (besides Mystara) die, and things are really shook up.

I've never really followed the FR so I don't know all the details.

However, in relation to NPCs, on the cover of the FR campaign book is a drow wielding 2 scimitars. :(

Susano

Jun 9th, '08, 09:37 AM

Yeah, that is what I read.
And Elminster doesn't dare ues his magic because there is something about other voices in his head that come out when he does (speculation is that they are some of the dead gods).

Another God (besides Mystara) die, and things are really shook up.

I've never really followed the FR so I don't know all the details.

However, in relation to NPCs, on the cover of the FR campaign book is a drow wielding 2 scimitars. :(

I noted that the two version of Ranger in 4th are the archer and the duel-wielder. So basically if you want to be a ranger you get to be either Legolas or Drizzit.

Whee...... :thumbdown

Eosin

Jun 9th, '08, 09:39 AM

Yeah, that is what I read.
And Elminster doesn't dare ues his magic because there is something about other voices in his head that come out when he does (speculation is that they are some of the dead gods).

Cool, Elmisnster has morphed into Rand.

However, in relation to NPCs, on the cover of the FR campaign book is a drow wielding 2 scimitars. :(

I almost included a statement in my post to the effect of .... "Only the elven characters do not have to worry about the time jump. They will still be youngins."

Lord Mhoram

Jun 9th, '08, 09:51 AM

Cool, Elmisnster has morphed into Rand.

Okay, I like that image. :D

I still remember the one sentence summation of the wheel of time:

"I'm going crazy. Or am I?" muttered Rand as Nyniave tugged on her braid.

Markdoc

Jun 9th, '08, 10:40 AM

I noted that the two version of Ranger in 4th are the archer and the duel-wielder. So basically if you want to be a ranger you get to be either Legolas or Drizzit.

Whee...... :thumbdown

Actually, it's been like that for a while - if you wanted an archer-type, your best bets were Ranger or Cleric (though by and large, archery sucked in D&D anyway) and Ranger was also the standard entry point to all the two-weapon melee classes. You were better off with magic for ranged attacks and up close and personal for physical harm. One of the things that they got right with 4E (IMO) is that they have balanced the amount of damage you can do with a bow better against melee damage. It's still less, but it's not waaaay less.

cheers, Mark

Fitz

Jun 9th, '08, 02:28 PM

Assuming it's balance you're aiming at, stand-off weapons like bows should be doing less damage than melee weapons to offset the fact that you don't have to put yourself directly in harm's way to use them.

And if you're aiming at simulationism (completely off-topic for a D&D discussion, I know) they should definitely be doing less damage to reflect the low shock value an arrow has compared with, say, an axe. Mind you, if you're simulationizing (?!!) you'd then have to look at ongoing effects from internal bleeding, but you get my drift.

Old Man

Jun 9th, '08, 02:51 PM

I always thought the real limitation with ranged weapons was ammo. But what do I know, I haven't played D&D in like two decades or so.

Markdoc

Jun 9th, '08, 02:55 PM

Assuming it's balance you're aiming at, stand-off weapons like bows should be doing less damage than melee weapons to offset the fact that you don't have to put yourself directly in harm's way to use them.

Balance? This! is! D&D! (try shouting it whilst wearing leather speedos :D)

In principle, of course, I agree, but in D&D3.5, the difference was extreme - a competent fighter by 6th level should be capable of dishing out 30+ hp of damage per round with extreme builds able to at least double that and more extreme builds tripling it. The best a bow-armed fighter could do is perhaps half to a third of that. As it stood, being an archer was mug's game: in our last session, the climactic fight ended suddenly as our 6th level fighter hit the chief baddy doing 96 HP in one wallop - and that wasn't even max damage. :eek:

And if you're aiming at simulationism (completely off-topic for a D&D discussion, I know) they should definitely be doing less damage to reflect the low shock value an arrow has compared with, say, an axe. Mind you, if you're simulationizing (?!!) you'd then have to look at ongoing effects from internal bleeding, but you get my drift.

Heh, for D&D, simulationism wasn't even on my over-the-horizon radar: my current swordfightery chap can stick someone with his sword and make them explode in flames, damaging other people in the near vicinity (oddly enough, though unpleasant, exploding in flames does not necessarily kill you). In that context, measuring weapons for wound size is a trifle academic :D

cheers, Mark

Eosin

Jun 9th, '08, 03:43 PM

In principle, of course, I agree, but in D&D3.5, the difference was extreme - a competent fighter by 6th level should be capable of dishing out 30+ hp of damage per round with extreme builds able to at least double that and more extreme builds tripling it. The best a bow-armed fighter could do is perhaps half to a third of that. As it stood, being an archer was mug's game.

I don't know. Some of those cleric archer + PrC builds were flat out disgusting. Given a couple of rounds they start to fire depleted uranium, discarding sabot, shafts of bursting, killing, opposition, flaming, cleaving, thunder, and grinding - some of them did enough damage to kill your ancestors. However, the single grossest build I can recall of the top was the lance charging paladin in Rhino-hide armor.

Markdoc

Jun 9th, '08, 08:00 PM

I don't know. Some of those cleric archer + PrC builds were flat out disgusting. Given a couple of rounds they start to fire depleted uranium, discarding sabot, shafts of bursting, killing, opposition, flaming, cleaving, thunder, and grinding - some of them did enough damage to kill your ancestors. However, the single grossest build I can recall of the top was the lance charging paladin in Rhino-hide armor.

That's true: I was classing them under magic, since none of those builds work without magic. And oddly enough my wife's character is currently Cleric 6 and an elven archery specialist - you can see where that's going. :D To be fair, the other PCs are
Me: Monk2/Cleric3/Swordsage1 - has gone for movement/defence feats and can dance/teleport his way through melee to kill the caster at the back with ease. A couple more levels and he'll also be dishing out damage in excess of 50 HP on the charge.
Lars. Barbarian2/Fighter 4: Tank. Heavy armor and a particularly gross feat combo - monkeygrip and exotic weapon: Goliath hammer. He uses a size L hammer meaning he can literally dish out over 100 hp in one blow with a good critical.

There's only three of us so we're all munchkin'ed out (with the GM's full approval, I should add: I've cleared all the feat trees with her - including the gross combos - in advance). She just throws bigger and/or more monsters at us.

cheers, Mark

Susano

Jun 10th, '08, 04:16 AM

Me: Monk2/Cleric3/Swordsage1 - has gone for movement/defence feats and can dance/teleport his way through melee to kill the caster at the back with ease. A couple more levels and he'll also be dishing out damage in excess of 50 HP on the charge.

Is he played by Jet Li?

CandidGamera

Jun 10th, '08, 06:36 AM

People keep saying things like that, but I just don't see it. Mind expanding on what those essential elements are?

Not at all.

The Generic Fantasy feel is gone, replaced by a very specific feel that isn't adaptable to the kind of games I want to run.

The elements that made characters different from one another - the parts of the game that really brought a character alive with detail - annihilated in the face of a uniformity unprecedented in the previous editions. (Don't get me wrong - I loved 3rd edition bringing consistency to the underlying system. But making all the classes virtually identical in structure has taken it too far.)

Everything's been hamstrung to fit into a tiny box.

I also don't like the downplay of magic and magical items. The acquisition of magical trinkets is almost an entertaining sub-game in and of itself, and I'm quite fond of the old versatile spells like Wish and Polymorph that provided more of a play advantage when used creatively and cleverly - far superior to "target takes 2d6+Int damage and is moved one square".

Markdoc

Jun 10th, '08, 07:30 AM

Is he played by Jet Li?

Nah, more the sarcastic anime-hero type. He talks too much to be Jet Li.

cheers, Mark

BlackSword

Jun 10th, '08, 08:04 AM

Lars. Barbarian2/Fighter 4: Tank. Heavy armor and a particularly gross feat combo - monkeygrip and exotic weapon: Goliath hammer. He uses a size L hammer meaning he can literally dish out over 100 hp in one blow with a good critical.
In the Magic Item Compendium there is a 'crystal' for a weapon that lets it increase in size by one category, and a pair of gloves that let you use a weapon a size larger with no penalty. For the munchkin game (ie how bad can you break a system) our GM let us stack them so we can use Huge weapons. Ugly things happen when the crits start flowing.

Dr. Confoundo

Jun 10th, '08, 09:06 AM

Not at all.

The Generic Fantasy feel is gone, replaced by a very specific feel that isn't adaptable to the kind of games I want to run.

First off, thanks for responding.

I don't see a 'Generic Fantasy feel' to be something that is impossible to reach with 4E (from what I've seen of it). Don't want Dragonborn or Teiflings? Don't allow them. Want a totally nonmagical game? Ban anything other than Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, and Warlords. Don't like the background given for Gnolls or Demons? Change it. And so on.

I've never much liked Generic Fantasy worlds, so I guess I'm not sure why that's a sticking point for you. (It's arguable that D&D ever even reached 'Generic Fantasy', rather than having a specific 'D&D Fantasy' feel.)

The elements that made characters different from one another - the parts of the game that really brought a character alive with detail - annihilated in the face of a uniformity unprecedented in the previous editions. (Don't get me wrong - I loved 3rd edition bringing consistency to the underlying system. But making all the classes virtually identical in structure has taken it too far.)

Everything's been hamstrung to fit into a tiny box.

I can understand this, although I'm not sure I agree with it. From what I've seen/heard, the classes play differently enough, even if they are mechanically similar. And I appreciate the lengths that they have gone to balance the classes with each other, and with the game world around them. In my last D&D campaign, I went through three characters, each of which was somehow hamstrung by specific 3.5E rules interactions that made the characters not fun to play. If 4E can alleviate that (without causing a whole host of other problems), I'll be happy.

I also don't like the downplay of magic and magical items. The acquisition of magical trinkets is almost an entertaining sub-game in and of itself, and I'm quite fond of the old versatile spells like Wish and Polymorph that provided more of a play advantage when used creatively and cleverly - far superior to "target takes 2d6+Int damage and is moved one square".

Here's where you and I definitely disagree. Magic Items in 3.5 were lame - there were only a handful that everyone bought, because the game required you to have those bonuses to be competative. All the other cool stuff went unused, except for those stat boost items, rings of protection, and cloaks of resistance. With 4Es downshift on the number of truly required magic items (weapon, armor, and neck-slot), that opens up a lot more of the other slots for having cool little powers that won't unbalance the game.

Similarly, those high level magic spells tended to be broken beyond belief. I'm happy that they have been put in the background, where they can't cause arguements and headaches any more.

Susano

Jun 10th, '08, 09:09 AM

Nah, more the sarcastic anime-hero type. He talks too much to be Jet Li.

cheers, Mark

Ah! So he's played by Ranma, then. :D

mayapuppies

Jun 10th, '08, 10:10 AM

We'll move this to the thread in the General Gaming area. :)

CTaylor

Jun 10th, '08, 10:34 AM

Assuming it's balance you're aiming at, stand-off weapons like bows should be doing less damage than melee weapons to offset the fact that you don't have to put yourself directly in harm's way to use them.

At the risk of starting a weird off tangent, bows and crossbows are incredibly deadly and most certainly are at least as lethal as hand-to-hand weapons, the "balance" assuming any such thing exists in real life is the difficulty of training and ammunition (plus you can't really dodge or block while firing and it takes longer per shot than a hand weapon.

I don't much worry about balance in weapons, I want them to as closely simulate what they do in real life without being too complex and complicated. Who cares if that stone age orc tribe can only make stone spears and I can make a crossbow, there's no balance between them and there ought not be.

Markdoc

Jun 10th, '08, 10:44 AM

In the Magic Item Compendium there is a 'crystal' for a weapon that lets it increase in size by one category, and a pair of gloves that let you use a weapon a size larger with no penalty. For the munchkin game (ie how bad can you break a system) our GM let us stack them so we can use Huge weapons. Ugly things happen when the crits start flowing.

We actually considered that :D (he has an anti-contruct crystal in that slot, IIRC) but after discussion with the GM, decided that enough was enough. Even without magic weapons, he's dishing out an average of 17 HP per hit, when the usual buffs are in use, he's up over 20. We may be munchkins, but we're not insane munchkins.

cheers, Mark

NestorDRod

Jun 10th, '08, 11:24 AM

We actually considered that :D (he has an anti-contruct crystal in that slot, IIRC) but after discussion with the GM, decided that enough was enough. Even without magic weapons, he's dishing out an average of 17 HP per hit, when the usual buffs are in use, he's up over 20. We may be munchkins, but we're not insane munchkins.

cheers, Mark

Heh. Mark, it's gotten to the point that whenever you throw out a MMO term (like "slot") I have to stop and ponder whether that's just you borrowing the jargon, or if WotC is actually using it in the game. :)

Chris Goodwin

Jun 10th, '08, 11:39 AM

Heh. Mark, it's gotten to the point that whenever you throw out a MMO term (like "slot") I have to stop and ponder whether that's just you borrowing the jargon, or if WotC is actually using it in the game. :)

I think the MMO term you were looking for is "buffs". HERO has been using "slot" since forever. :D

BlackSword

Jun 10th, '08, 11:50 AM

We actually considered that :D (he has an anti-contruct crystal in that slot, IIRC) but after discussion with the GM, decided that enough was enough. Even without magic weapons, he's dishing out an average of 17 HP per hit, when the usual buffs are in use, he's up over 20. We may be munchkins, but we're not insane munchkins.

cheers, Mark
We went with being insane Munchkins, we are trying to figure out how to get my Half-Dragon Paladin/Vassal of Bahamut to over 50 Strength. Our characters are also up around 18th level, so we're quite a bit higher level than your game.

NestorDRod

Jun 10th, '08, 12:21 PM

I think the MMO term you were looking for is "buffs". HERO has been using "slot" since forever. :D

Yah, but the context that Mark used definitely fits the bill. At least in the couple of MMOs I've experienced, you have a number of limited "slots' in which to place active "buffs".

And he's already used "exploit" before.

I'll repeat my suggestion from another thread. New forum drinking game! Drink every time someone uses a MMO term when describing D&D 4e. Drink twice if it's actually used in the rules. :D

CandidGamera

Jun 10th, '08, 12:49 PM

First off, thanks for responding.

I don't see a 'Generic Fantasy feel' to be something that is impossible to reach with 4E (from what I've seen of it). Don't want Dragonborn or Teiflings? Don't allow them. Want a totally nonmagical game? Ban anything other than Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, and Warlords. Don't like the background given for Gnolls or Demons? Change it. And so on.

I wish it was that simple. Every damn character is a Jedi Knight, packed full of force abilities now. Sure, they claim different power sources, but it's really all the same thing. And then there's the abysmal lack of diversity. It's not just the mishmash of deities from other worlds, the Feywild, the Eladrin, the Dragonborn, the Warlocks, et al. The very system itself is no longer compatible with the feel I want.

I've never much liked Generic Fantasy worlds, so I guess I'm not sure why that's a sticking point for you. (It's arguable that D&D ever even reached 'Generic Fantasy', rather than having a specific 'D&D Fantasy' feel.)

Gosh, I guess the reason why it's a sticking point for me is because I have a different taste than you. Sorry to be sarcastic, but you should be able to understand my point of view even if you don't share it.

I can understand this, although I'm not sure I agree with it. From what I've seen/heard, the classes play differently enough, even if they are mechanically similar. And I appreciate the lengths that they have gone to balance the classes with each other, and with the game world around them. In my last D&D campaign, I went through three characters, each of which was somehow hamstrung by specific 3.5E rules interactions that made the characters not fun to play. If 4E can alleviate that (without causing a whole host of other problems), I'll be happy.

I can't imagine how they'd play all that differently. And god help you if you want to try to distinguish two rogues from one another.

Here's where you and I definitely disagree. Magic Items in 3.5 were lame - there were only a handful that everyone bought, because the game required you to have those bonuses to be competative. All the other cool stuff went unused, except for those stat boost items, rings of protection, and cloaks of resistance. With 4Es downshift on the number of truly required magic items (weapon, armor, and neck-slot), that opens up a lot more of the other slots for having cool little powers that won't unbalance the game.

To borrow an old chestnut from another messageboard, the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. Let's just say that my experiences with the (3.5) game differ vastly from yours.

Similarly, those high level magic spells tended to be broken beyond belief. I'm happy that they have been put in the background, where they can't cause arguements and headaches any more.

High level spells? Polymorph? It's not high level.. And they haven't been put in the background, they've been taken behind the barn and shot.

incrdbil

Jun 10th, '08, 02:04 PM

I'll repeat my suggestion from another thread. New forum drinking game! Drink every time someone uses a MMO term when describing D&D 4e. Drink twice if it's actually used in the rules. :D

Can I read up on first aid for fatal levels of intoxication first? :)

I can see how quickly creating a D&d character coudl lead to alt-itis. As people explore for the newest power combo, the fad of the month character type wll be bandied about, and people will quicky roll up a new alt to explore it.

Ok, Drink !

Lord Mhoram

Jun 10th, '08, 02:09 PM

. Sure, they claim different power sources, but it's really all the same thing.

Not to trying to be personal, but I always felt that argument from someone who plays Hero is just a little.... non-sensical

"You can have different special effects for your Energy Blast, but it's all really the same thing"

That is really all power sources are, Special effects for your abilities. :)

I can't find the thread but someone renamed all of the fighter abilities like:

Hit them so hard they stumble
Hit them so hard it scares their friend into fleeing
Smack them so impressively your teammate is impressed

And so on. No jedi flavor - more a Conan like feel for everything. :)

Lord Mhoram

Jun 10th, '08, 02:11 PM

The very system itself is no longer compatible with the feel I want.

That of course, being the telling and true point. If a system can't give you the game you want, then you don't use it. I've left many game systems behind for just that reason.

CTaylor

Jun 10th, '08, 02:47 PM

So far from the preview stuff it appears that D&D has inflated slightly: you do more damage with weapons (and to more targets) but the bad guys have many more hit points (the goblins had over 30, for example, when in previous editions they had 5 or 6). This has the effect of making fights last longer, but they kind of had to do it because of all the healing that's been thrown around.

incrdbil

Jun 10th, '08, 02:58 PM

Not to trying to be personal, but I always felt that argument from someone who plays Hero is just a little.... non-sensical

Well, if D&D were like Hero, and not a class based game, it would be.

Hugh Neilson

Jun 10th, '08, 03:12 PM

At the risk of starting a weird off tangent, bows and crossbows are incredibly deadly and most certainly are at least as lethal as hand-to-hand weapons, the "balance" assuming any such thing exists in real life is the difficulty of training and ammunition (plus you can't really dodge or block while firing and it takes longer per shot than a hand weapon.

I don't much worry about balance in weapons, I want them to as closely simulate what they do in real life without being too complex and complicated. Who cares if that stone age orc tribe can only make stone spears and I can make a crossbow, there's no balance between them and there ought not be.

What, realistically, should a 75' lizard's fire breath inflict for damage as compared to a crossbow?