D&D 4th

[Karmakaze]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Oh' date=' and I can't think of a single campaign I ever played in that made use of the material component rules for spell-casting. Get wet? No worries about powders being ruined. Need a diamond for that spell? That's expensive, don't worry about it. Rare component only found in Greenland. I'll just pick some up at the store?[/quote']

 

I used to use a variant on it when I ran my Attack of the Beautiful Princesses convention game. (The game starts with all of the PCs losing all their stuff, so strictly adhering to those rules would be unfair.) If the player could give me a logical substitution, I let them try it. I recall someone doing a featherfall with a paper airplane instead of feathers, once...

[Diamond_J]

Re: D&D 4th

 

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.

 

My point is your supporting arguement stems from the borrowed assessment of others. I'd merely be conceding that your argument has merit and there would be no sence dissputing a valid opinion, that would genuinely be your own.

[Diamond_J]

Re: D&D 4th

 

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.

 

 

I fully agree.

[Kdansky]

Re: D&D 4th

 

This wizard is just an archer. It's the most boring magic slinger I've ever had.

 

Now imagine playing an archer in 3E, compared to a mage in 3E. Doesn't that feel kinda unfair? As if the mage had a 150 point Cosmic VPP, and you only an EB 12d6. At least the ground is level now. I assume the obligatory supplements will add loads of crap for everyone. Currently, it's very bland, but there is only so much one can fit into a single book.

 

4E is fun but it's not any faster to play than 3.5.

So after half a session of 4E, you could play it as fast as 3.5 (in which I guess you have a lot of experience). That implies that 3.5 is a lot slower than 4 if you are equally used to both.

 

It seems like all we do now is deal damage and we're all doing about the same amount.

That seriously sounds weird to me, after reading through the rules. How will a fighter ever achieve a rogues damage if the rogue can Sneak Attack constistently? But then, you might have played a party of similar classes. I can't tell. Chances are, you are just way to inexperienced with the new tactical options. It took me years to be able to play HERO well...

On the other hand, if you do calculations like "because I got combat advantage, I was able to Flank for 239847 damage, but I only got CA because of the fighter, therefore half the damage should be attributed as his", and then end up with same amounts for everyone, that would just mean that you have a very well balanced game.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Now imagine playing an archer in 3E' date=' compared to a mage in 3E. Doesn't that feel kinda unfair? As if the mage had a 150 point Cosmic VPP, and you only an EB 12d6. At least the ground is level now. I assume the obligatory supplements will add loads of crap for everyone. Currently, it's very bland, but there is only so much one can fit into a single book.[/quote']

 

"Fair is not always equal, and equal is not always fair". We can give everyone similar attacks that do similar damage, but can't the mage still inflict his damage stripped of all his equipment? The old limiting factor was that the mage only had so many spells, and had to choose them in advance, where the archer could keep going as long as his arrows held out. And most archers had lots of arrows. Balance can be achieved without sacrificing differentiation, although it is harder.

 

On the other hand' date=' if you do calculations like "because I got combat advantage, I was able to Flank for 239847 damage, but I only got CA because of the fighter, therefore half the damage should be attributed as his", and then end up with same amounts for everyone, that would just mean that you have a very well balanced game.[/quote']

 

This is a large part of why I think our group has less balance concerns - it's a team win. A fighter who can set the rogue up for a sneak attack by not doing any damage in a round is just as valuable, maybe more so, as a fighter who can inflict damage himself.

[Kdansky]

Re: D&D 4th

 

You are playing into my hands, you know

"Fair is not always equal' date=' and equal is not always fair". We can give everyone similar attacks that do similar damage, but can't the mage still inflict his damage stripped of all his equipment? The old limiting factor was that the mage only had so many spells, and had to choose them in advance, where the archer could keep going as long as his arrows held out. And most archers had lots of arrows. Balance can be achieved without sacrificing differentiation, although it is harder.[/quote']

So one has as many shots as he has spells, and the other has as many shots as he has arrows. I don't really see so much difference there in concept. The only thing I see (assuming below 10th level wizard):

 

Wizard has fewer attacks, but they count more.

 

So if encounters last longer, Archers are better, and if they are shorter, Wizards rule. That's a flavour difference. True, 4th does not seem to make this much, and I also would like this to be a bit more profound (give the archer twice the daily abilities, and make the wizard ones a bit better). I'm sure supplements will fix this.

 

And Equipment? We all know that OIF is pretty good bang for the buck. You are rarely stripped completely (without spoiling all the fun of the game), and therefore equipment dependency is not that much of a deal breaker. Also, mages in 4E are very gear dependant too to do decent damage.

 

This is a large part of why I think our group has less balance concerns - it's a team win. A fighter who can set the rogue up for a sneak attack by not doing any damage in a round is just as valuable, maybe more so, as a fighter who can inflict damage himself.

And that was just not possible in 3.5. No teamwork required, due to the mage being a team of his own. Now, we have tactics. In short: You are using my line there

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: D&D 4th

 

And that was just not possible in 3.5. No teamwork required' date=' due to the mage being a team of his own. Now, we have tactics. In short: You are using my line there [/quote']

 

Once again, I am sorry for your experiences. They certainly don't match my own, where the wizard needs to be cautious as to his spell selection and rate of spell usage, and relies as much as possible on the rest of the team to fill in the gaps.

[CTaylor]

Re: D&D 4th

 

I've never played a single game of D&D where a mage was a one-man army, then again maybe I've just not played high enough level. Maybe at level 40 you can do that kind of stuff, but then you're kind of in the broken game territory at that level anyway. Mages are weak as all get out in 3.5 and early D&D until they get incredibly high level. They just flat out sucked at the early levels.

[Kdansky]

Re: D&D 4th

 

I've never played a single game of D&D where a mage was a one-man army' date=' then again maybe I've just not played high enough level. Maybe at level 40 you can do that kind of stuff, but then you're kind of in the broken game territory at that level anyway. Mages are weak as all get out in 3.5 and early D&D until they get incredibly high level. They just flat out sucked at the early levels.[/quote']

 

Yeah, Level 1-5 is not fun at all, Level 5-10 is fun and balanced, and then it gets bad quickly. 3.5 is said to have a soft spot around 4-8 and my experience is the same. HERO has a soft spot at 350 too, by the way. Try to build supers with a 150 points. But D20 tries to be playable from 1-20, and only about 25% of that scale is really good. It's like making 50cp Hero Supers (can't afford a thing) and 1000cp HERO characters (Knockback? Need for ALL unusual defenses...). Won't work well.

[CandidGamera]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Yeah' date=' Level 1-5 is not fun at all, Level 5-10 is fun and balanced, and then it gets bad quickly. 3.5 is said to have a soft spot around 4-8 and my experience is the same. HERO has a soft spot at 350 too, by the way. Try to build supers with a 150 points. But D20 tries to be playable from 1-20, and only about 25% of that scale is really good. It's like making 50cp Hero Supers (can't afford a thing) and 1000cp HERO characters (Knockback? Need for ALL unusual defenses...). Won't work well.[/quote']

 

The really funny thing about this assertion of D&D's soft/sweet spot is that every single person who makes reference to it references a different range of levels.

[CTaylor]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Try to build supers with a 150 points.

 

Depends what your campaign is like. If you're trying to run the Avengers, then you're going to have a hard time. If you're running the original New Mutants, no problem. In Hero, point values are a question of expectations, not problems with the system. I prefer low point characters as a GM because it gives me more scenario possibilities. In a campaign where everyone is bulletproof, bank robbers become trivial.

[BlackSword]

Re: D&D 4th

 

We played 4th Edition on Saturday night. It was a lot of fun. We all made first level characters, there were four of us. I was a warlord that took the rogue multiclass feat, there was a warlock with a ranger multiclass, plus a wizard and a fighter.

 

Impression: It was fun. I think everyone got to make use of their powers. I think there was only one round in which I just made a standard attack, otherwise it was more effective for me to do actions which helped my teammates. Action points are a neat addition and encourage the party to continue moving forwardas opposed to the old 1 encounter then rest days. There are a few odd quirks, we missed an action point because we intimidated our way through the an encounter (I might argue with the GM that since we made it past an encounter we earned an action piont). That made the final fight more difficult, because it assumed you would have an extra action point laying around. With the first book, I like that there are no feats associated with both race and class, the only problem was that it meant about half the feats were not applicable to a single character. I expect this to be less of an issue as more splatbooks are released.

 

We had a fun time, we nearly had a TPK, but managed to barely kill the last big bad. Because of the way the heal skill works the wizard was able to use the Heal skill to the fighter and warlord back on their feet.

[CTaylor]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Here's the thing, I bet 4th edition D&D is a lot of fun. I think games like Warhammer Quest and Dungeon Seige are a lot of fun. That's not really the issue, I wouldn't want to replace my fantasy hero game (or even 3rd edition D&D game) with Warhammer Quest or Dungeon Seige, as fun as they are - and that's what 4th edition does.

[mayapuppies]

Re: D&D 4th

 

...there was a warlock with a ranger multiclass...

Yeah, this has become the generic combo at my FLGS already.

[mayapuppies]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Here's the thing' date=' I bet 4th edition D&D is a lot of fun. I think games like Warhammer Quest and Dungeon Seige are a lot of fun. That's not really the issue, I wouldn't want to replace my fantasy hero game (or even 3rd edition D&D game) with Warhammer Quest or Dungeon Seige, as fun as they are - and that's what 4th edition does.[/quote']

So true

[NestorDRod]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Here's the thing' date=' I bet 4th edition D&D is a lot of fun. I think games like Warhammer Quest and Dungeon Seige are a lot of fun. That's not really the issue, I wouldn't want to replace my fantasy hero game (or even 3rd edition D&D game) with Warhammer Quest or Dungeon Seige, as fun as they are - and that's what 4th edition does.[/quote']

 

Definitely QFT.

[BlackSword]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Here's the thing' date=' I bet 4th edition D&D is a lot of fun. I think games like Warhammer Quest and Dungeon Seige are a lot of fun. That's not really the issue...[/quote']

To me the issue is about having 'fun' with my friends. Sometimes that fun is with D&D, sometimes it's Hero, sometimes it's a White Wolf game.

...I wouldn't want to replace my fantasy hero game (or even 3rd edition D&D game) with Warhammer Quest or Dungeon Seige, as fun as they are - and that's what 4th edition does.

I guess I just don't see games systems as mutually exclusive. I can (and have) played multiple game systems in the same week. I'm not saying anyone has to like, or even play D&D4th, but to treat it like an evil stepmother who "tore" your parents apart is a bit unfair.

[mayapuppies]

Re: D&D 4th

 

...but to treat it like an evil stepmother who "tore" your parents apart is a bit unfair.

No matter how true it might be?

[BlackSword]

Re: D&D 4th

 

No matter how true it might be?

How is it true?

[mayapuppies]

Re: D&D 4th

 

How is it true?

Sigh

 

Internet sarcasm, lost again.

[CTaylor]

Re: D&D 4th

 

to treat it like an evil stepmother who "tore" your parents apart is a bit unfair.

 

Get back to us when you see or read anyone doing that.

[Kdansky]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Here's the thing' date=' I bet 4th edition D&D is a lot of fun. I think games like Warhammer Quest and Dungeon Seige are a lot of fun. That's not really the issue, I wouldn't want to replace my fantasy hero game (or even 3rd edition D&D game) with Warhammer Quest or Dungeon Seige, as fun as they are - and that's what 4th edition does.[/quote']

 

So it's not about how good the game really is? It's only about principles and premature assumptions. Thread over, gentlemen.

[Nolgroth]

Re: D&D 4th

 

So it's not about how good the game really is? It's only about principles and premature assumptions. Thread over' date=' gentlemen.[/quote']Interesting take on the message you quoted. Sounds to me like an acknowledgment of the value of D&D 4th while stating that he is more comfortable with his existing rules. That same sentiment has been echoed by a lot of people (me included) on these boards. Not particularly surprising considering these are the HERO forums. I would expect at least as much resistance to Fantasy HERO on the D&D boards.

[Kdansky]

Re: D&D 4th

 

Interesting take on the message you quoted. Sounds to me like an acknowledgment of the value of D&D 4th while stating that he is more comfortable with his existing rules. That same sentiment has been echoed by a lot of people (me included) on these boards. Not particularly surprising considering these are the HERO forums. I would expect at least as much resistance to Fantasy HERO on the D&D boards.

The thing is: People defend 3rd against 4th on the HERO boards.

[Nolgroth]

Re: D&D 4th

 

The thing is: People defend 3rd against 4th on the HERO boards.

Point taken.