D&D 4th

[mayapuppies]

Re: D&D 4th

 

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

[incrdbil]

Re: D&D 4th

 

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]

Re: D&D 4th

 

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.

[incrdbil]

Re: D&D 4th

 

While I certainly prefer a game world that doesn't have hot and cold running magic items in every household' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: D&D 4th

 

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]

Re: D&D 4th

 

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.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: D&D 4th

 

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]

Re: D&D 4th

 

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......

[Eosin]

Re: D&D 4th

 

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' date=' in relation to NPCs, on the cover of the FR campaign book is a drow wielding 2 scimitars. [/quote']

 

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]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Cool, Elmisnster has morphed into Rand.

 

 

Okay, I like that image.

 

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]

Re: D&D 4th

 

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......

 

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]

Re: D&D 4th

 

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]

Re: D&D 4th

 

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]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Assuming it's balance you're aiming at' date=' stand-off weapons like bows [i']should[/i] 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 )

 

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.

 

And if you're aiming at simulationism (completely off-topic for a D&D discussion' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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

 

cheers, Mark

[Eosin]

Re: D&D 4th

 

In principle' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: D&D 4th

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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. 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]

Re: D&D 4th

 

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]

Re: D&D 4th

 

People keep saying things like that' date=' but I just don't see it. Mind expanding on what those essential elements are?[/quote']

 

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]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Is he played by Jet Li?

 

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

 

cheers, Mark

[BlackSword]

Re: D&D 4th

 

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]

Re: D&D 4th

 

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]

Re: D&D 4th

 

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.

[mayapuppies]

Re: D&D 4th

 

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

[CTaylor]

Re: D&D 4th

 

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]

Re: D&D 4th

 

In the Magic Item Compendium there is a 'crystal' for a weapon that lets it increase in size by one category' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

We actually considered that (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