D&D 4th ed

[HairyHeretic]

I understand that demo / pre release stuff for 4th ed is starting to appear. Anyone had a try of it yet? If so, what's your thoughts on it?

[kongming]

It has undergone... extensive reviewing on the Gaming Den, and to sum it up politely, they all think it's utter shit. I'm more or less in agreement. They have followed the Saga path where no abilities or feats are actually interesting - instead of new abilities and cool stuff, almost everything is "another +1 to this, +4 to that".

They still don't seem to know how to balance things, the guy with the dragon fetish (no offence, BK *wink*) is still in charge of monster design, we've already found some aspects that are highly abusable and others that are just plain stupid...

The game also encourages a weird playstyle of "Leap in, blow your load (so to speak), run away, repeat." In 3.X it was "Sleep after every fight, I'm looking at YOU, Wizard and Cleric." Now you run off to take a small break in the middle of battle. And that is dumb.

Those people who believe all medieval battles were fought just like their SCA duelling, and who think all fantasy games should be like that, *might* like it. Because it's practically the end of your career by the time you get flight (ie before you'll be able to fight a staple fantasy creature like a chimera or manticore) or invisibility. Remember how 1-4 of 3.X was trudging through embarrassing lower levels of "Beat up these goblins! Kick a kobold over and fetch me a bucket! Take this ladder to the baker, squashing a dog-sized spider on the way. Get more beer from the next town, and there are bandits along the way"?

You can look forward to that for the first 10 or so levels now. And yeah, the combat will sort of devolve into no interesting abilities being available and it all getting boring. Actually, I'm not sure even the realism-freaks will like it, even ignoring "But dragons just don't exist!"

If I try really hard I might be able to think of something good to say about it. But I doubt it. The debate on the Gaming Den (note: one of the more vocal members, our leader of sorts, used to be an RPG designer before he decided to go study medicine in Prague. He did some of the Shadowrun stuff, and he warned WotC about certain abuses and rule issues of 3.0, so then for 3.5, they banned him from the forums rather than fix anything. Yeah, they don't take criticism. The rest of us tend to, through lots of playtesting and being decent with numbers, be good at seeing mechanics problems, and, through being fans of fantasy, be good at seeing flavour problems) has basically been a continual "Hey, here's their newest article. Spot the stupidity!"

[Jefepato]

Are the classes at least marginally better-balanced than before?

I mean, let's face it, every edition of D&D has managed to be full of all kinds of abusable stupidity, and yet still manage to actually be a lot of fun.  (D&D is hardly alone in this.)  I'm looking forward to whatever the Gaming Den comes up with next, though.

[kongming]

Well, Frank (the one in Prague) has said that, despite any issues, every former edition has been fun - whether "out of the box" or "after I had fun typing up large books of house rules and fixed classes". Except this one.

That being said, the classes are more evenly matched against each other, and with... okay, instead of "I am the cheerleader, I cast buffs." they have more "If I do this, then you get this bonus too." abilities for various people. So there's a little bit of synergy there, but not so much that it matters. I mean, the fighter has an ability where if the enemy attacks not-him, they take a penalty to hit. Except the penalty is less than the difference between his "I wear full plate" AC and the mage's/rogue's "I'm a naked man in a fight." AC.

But yes. So far, it seems as though the classes are closer together. Whereas 3.X had "The level appropriate guys, who can also abuse certain rules to be too good, sometimes" (full-casters, with Rogues trailing along the end if they do the acid-flask-throwing, Epic-feat-gaining, abuse-magic-device routine) and "The rest, who are not level-appropriate." (Fighter and Monk are the worst examples, but there are plenty of others", and TGD Tome material just shunts everyone into "level appropriate land" and says "Look, some things are outright abusive. Make a gentleman's agreement not to use them.", this does it by making everyone kind of boring and lame.

But yeah, at least you can say "I'm a fighter" without having to hide your face.

[Far eyes]

I have guan trough the 4e light PHB and have played in a short 4e prevue game and I have to say I am split on the subject. Mostly because I was never one of the balance whores and happen to believe to a degree (Not epic lvl wizard vs epic lvl useless fighter) degree but to a point that feel and style should go over balance

Pro

Now you can actually fight things at first level that look kind of fun, not just 1d3 rats.

Level 1 character are much less prone to sudden fits of death and with the new rules on crits it looks like the sudden death from the single stupid roll is less likely.

As a caster you can actually do something each round and don’t have to drag around a crossbow or *Shudders* sling

Cons

It all looks prty meh, its about as gray as gray gets. 4e has a bad caser of tastelessness or at least that is what I get from it.

With all the efforts to balance everything against everything ells I feel they really killed magic, wizards just no longer feel magical and it looks like they are going for mechanical balance over feel and taste so a lot of the things that use to do what they sead are now just prty lame

I find this really disturbing tendency of making the MM into a long list of stuff you can fight, ok I have to agree that basically MM 3-5 was that already. But 4e is just stripping away anything that isn’t used in killing stuff.

I also find the implication that now the PCs are by default these Super human adventuring power rangers prty fucking retarded. Personally I had never used the Commoner, Warrior and Noble DMG classes because I think its prty stupid. And 4e is just going more into that philosophy

[EGFrost]

I like what I've seen so far.  Granted, I don't have full acess, but what I have seen, and played through with the PHB Lite, makes me like it. 

As a DM, the fact that exception based design takes me back to some of the good old days, of when I first began D&D is a good thing, as is ease of use.  There are tons of examples of the 'universal' approach of 3.X D&D that are ridiculous, as anyone who hangs out in the charop forums can tell you.  Monsters and players don't /need/ to use the same rules, and decoupling them, is, IMO, an improvement.

As a player, the fact that the fighter and the paladin now actually have tools to be 'sticky' or punish people for ignoring them to attack the casters is /great/.  Before, unless the DM was playing the monsters as exceptionally stupid, the fighter had bo way to actually /protect/ the glass canons that were the spellcasters and rogues.  And I like Tome of Battle, so it's nice to see a /similar/ mechanic (Not quite the same) that allows nonspellcasters to remain useful at higher levels.  The system also seems less arcane, and much less of a cascading system.  [By cascading, I mean this: An undead ambush results in a party member taking con damage, losing a level, ande becoming fatigued.  You now have to change fort saves, carrying capacity, hit points, spells known, all saves, etc.  By the time you actually figure out what just happened, half the players at the table have walked off.  And then you realize you forgot that cat's grace was still up from the last encounter, so you wouldn't actually have been hit at all].

I am slightly worried about the loss of /mechanical/ differences between classes, but I have good roleplayers, and I expect that they'll behave quite differently, even with the same underlying mechanics.  People who enjoy or are invested in the complexity won't like it, of course.  The people who think nothing of throwing together a four or five PrC combination, if it gives them the flavor and abilities they like.  And some people who enjoy playing commoners with swords are a bit upset by the assumption that PCs are heroes, and hence, special.  I however, have always assumed so.  If the world needs saving, there should be a reason why the party is needed.  My PCs have always been heroes, and NPCs almost always lack the same sort of skills the PCs have.  Chosen by fate, pawns of the gods, or what have you, they've always had second chances, action points, or whatever.

Ultimately, the new system, (so far) maintains the feel of D&D I love (even some from earlier editions) and ditches alot of the complexity.  While there are a few things I was thinking I would miss, in retrospect, they were almost never used, or can still be done.  I really don't /care/ if there's a detailed subset of the rules for grappling, or if the ogre just makes a fort save to prevent it.  I don't care that undead use d12s and fey use d6s, because for a monster of the same CR, and same general role, the total HP are going to be almost exactly the same anyway.  I don't feel a need to add two levels in 'aberration' to a beholder.  I don't /care/ how many ranks in craft basketweaving my commoners have, after they max out profession: farmer.  It /is/ a simpler system, especially in the individual actions.  However, like chess or go, I think this new, 4e framework allows for nearly endless complexity in tactical considerations.  Easy to learn, impossible to master.  And of course, while I enjoy rolling the dice, I won't miss squeezing 12 seconds of combat into 2 hours, at any level past level 11.  Or the fact that save or dies make doing damage utterly useless.    Or well ... I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

Ultimately, I think I and my group will like 4e.  I could be wrong.  Or, I could just be a different audience than others.  All I want out of a system is consistent resolution for chancey events.  I play exalted, I like stunts in play.  I play eberron, I like the PCs as above average individuals.  I played modules, because I didn't have time to devote 3-5 hours of GM time for every hour of gameplay.  I play with people who want their characters to do cool things, and change the world.  For us?  4th Edition sounds like just what the doctor ordered.

[Jeramiahh]

Repost from another thread here, from about a month ago, giving my impressions and thoughts on the game.

4th edition playtest report:

So, tonight, hobbling together bits and pieces of rules form across the net, the premade characters from the D&D experience, and a player-made module created using the very limited number of monsters we have available... I ran a 4th edition game tonight.

Goddammit the players are hard to kill.

The encounters varied greatly in difficulty; the first was an easy encounter for a 4-man party, and this was a six; each of the three players controlled two of the premade PCs. That encounter only required the fighter to use a single healing surge. The second one was a lot better; the 8 minions annoyed the hell out of the fighter, who missed one three rounds in a row. That was an 'appropriate' challenge for said party, but was still fairly easy, partially due to misreading the wizard's spell, partly due to the fact my players are very, very tactically minded... the fighter, with his anti-five-foot-step aura, essentially locked down half the kobolds every fight, while the paladin tanked the rest.

The next fight got interesting; no more level 1 kobolds, now they were fighting 2's and 3's... 7, in this one. Unfortunately, the ranger decided to abuse the ever-loving hell out of his teleport power, and the party got the jump on the difficult encounter, neutralizing the very dangerous spell-caster in less than 2 rounds. The rest were easy pickings, with his inability to use his area buff.

The fourth fight switched to undead; tough bastards, too. A 5th level and 2 3rds... an above average difficulty fight for them... and it was. The cleric did nothing but heal the entire fight, except to land a beautiful turn undead on the first action. Nailed 2/3 of them, and was probably why they won... especially after the fighter pushed the other skeleton right into being surrounded by everyone else, beating him to death. Still did a lot of damage to them.

The final fight was the hardest; 6 level 3 hobgoblins. That had more HP, more attack, and more damage than the players. How'd they win that, without a single person dropping unconscious the entire adventure? They novaed in that final fight. Hard. Everyone's first round action was to drop their daily AND burn an action point. One of the three fighters and the mage were more than half dead by the time the dust settled, and everyone else was hurting. Followed by a series of abysmal rolls, including four attacks that were the player's AC -1, they managed to escape a death by the slimmest of margins, though, if I'd been more tactically minded, I would've done a lot more damage to them; the DM has to get really creative with some of these guys.

Some observations; fighters are amazing at control; nothing can 'shift', or five-foot-step, away from them, without provoking anyway. This lead to the unfortunate death of many, many kobolds, as they either tried to shift, which is one of the key powers of the kobold, or couldn't escape imminent, cleaving death. The paladin's challenge ability is majorly abusive, combined with the fighter; by challenging something that couldn't hit the paladin at that moment, but was threatened by the fighter, the creature had to choose; do nothing, attack the fighter and take 8, or move to attack the paladin... and take an AoO, for up to 15. This, too, lead to many deaths.

Players can take things far above their level, almost absurdly so. I hope this doesn't carry throughout the game; having to throw squads of things 2-4 levels higher than the players to challenge them seems wrong. The game is fairly fast; we finished all of those encounters in less than 5 hours, and only one encounter had less than 6 creatures in it, along with six players. I love the new magic items; they're powerful, but not overwhelmingly so. The NPC caster's recharge mechanic's a little wonky, but interesting, and forces more DM strategizing. A LOT of movement based abilities in the game, yet my players still spent most fights in a tight formation, with the fighters blocking the melee fighters from attacking the squishies. I think this will change, immensely, one area attacks start flying at them, but for now, it was very hard to hurt the back row fighters; the ranger and wizard never took damage, and the cleric and warlock were only hurt in the last encounter, albeit seriously.

I imagine I'm going to houserule death and dying; right now, it's almost impossible to kill someone. Hell, I was *trying* to kill the paladin, and he just. Would. Not. Die. He never even hit 0; he just took damage, then popped up to full, thanks to the healbot cleric. Surges are powerful, especially stacked with the cleric's healing 2/encounter power.

All in all; I enjoyed tonight. If I'd had more control over the NPCs, I would've done things differently, and I'm fairly certain we misinterpreted at LEAST half a dozen rules, and made bad rulings left and right. But, most importantly, it was fun. There was never a single round, when someone said "I do nothing." That felt good. The low-level wizard in me jumped for joy, because there was noone resorting to "I shoot my crossbow" or "I twiddle." There was ALWAYS something to do, even if it was chucking a bag full of flour at a kobold.

Also, the award goes to the wizard, for most kills in a round; downing three minions with a single attack, though he missed them all; he lit the cloud of flour on fire, which did damage, killing them all instantly.

[WyzardWhately]

I've been following the game pretty closely for a while now.

My impression is that it is an extremely well-designed game, into which a great deal of deep consideration has been put.  However, it is a product that is probably not designed for me (Or, apparently, a lot of the people on this site, referred to above.)  I do think it's foolish to say the game "sucks," when it merely fails to please the palate of the individual.  I expect to find that I prefer the older editions, but I can't deny that the designers have probably succeeded in meeting the design goals they set for themselves.  Now, I happen to think those design goals are short-sighted and limited in a lot of ways that are going to clash with what I like to do as a GM and as a player, so it's not the game for me.  But it's far and away from sucking, IMHO.  I honestly don't know how people find the time and energy to hate games like 4E, when there's shit like RaHoWa and FATAL and SenZar out there.

TL;DR: It's probably a love-it or hate-it thing.  Give it a shot and find out if it's to your taste, if you can do so without buying the books.

[vampyrer0me0]

I just got the first module(Shadowfell keep or whatever) In stock and ran it last night for my employees. I like it it seems pretty cool. I like the  changes to the fighter class that allows it to really defend the weaker people. The way the monsters are set up is also really fun. The differant archtypes to make it really easy for a dm to remember more or less what monsters do. The inclusion of minions allowing for battles where players are fight a huge ammount of low hp same danger as far as damage monsters gives the game a slightly differant feel.

Im waiting for the full books to come out before i pass final judgement but i like it so far.

[Elohim]

So....  is DnD turning into a blander, less anime inspired exalted?

[OldSchoolGamer]

I rarely used canned monsters when I DMed D&D.

Never forget that tactics are everything.  Three measly 2HD monsters can take down a sixth-level fighter...under the right circumstances.  Did in fact, in one of my games where a player got cocky.

[Far eyes]

What would you rather be fighting and having a real chance and still be challenged without getting instakiled on a hit. 1d3 rats or 10 goblins

Be honest

[Far eyes]

Hehe

The Orc Excert from the 4e MM really went down nice with me.

Everything their from a low lever orc encounter to a higher level one as well as probably grouping suggestions. A nice clean format, and I kind of really like the new cleaned up monster stat blocks. Really nice not having Alertness tacked onto everything and their grandmother

[OldSchoolGamer]

Ah, rats. 
It's not just a harmless, G-rated expression of frustration anymore.

[kongming]

Never forget that tactics are everything.

Keeping in mind that some critters don't understand tactics. Many low-Int monsters use the tactic of "run forward and attack the closest thing" or "charge, then run away if I get hurt" or even "Sit back and see how it goes for the others before leaping in or running off." Most trolls, ogres and animals aren't reading the works of Cao Cao Mengde, Zhuge Liang Kongming or Sun Tzu.

Three measly 2HD monsters can take down a sixth-level fighter...under the right circumstances.  Did in fact, in one of my games where a player got cocky.

Let's be fair: fighters aren't worth the sheet they're written on, barring very special circumstances or the lowest levels. So "it can tear a fighter apart." is hardly a measuring stick :p

[Far eyes]

Kobolds on the other hand now ..

[Starr69]

Kobolds on the other hand now ..

Depends on the Kobolds!

I once ran a 2E campaign where while the part was away from their keep/home base, a large band of kobolds overran it.

They raided the PC's armory, and used dirty tricks (they had an unusually smart leader) and tactics to fend off the PCs when they returned. Man, my guys hated those kobolds. :)

From what I've seen of 4E, I'll give it a try. It does seem very much to me like whoever was writing the game basically wanted to play WoW at a table, with dice. I play WoW, but I liked the flavor of old D&D. *sigh*

[Far eyes]

I have herd the MMORPG thing used a couple of times but in have to say that most of the ability’s of melee characters can be described by a variety of things that are not flashy. So while your character dos have a lot more ability’s now you can just use the “Smacks him with his shield” description without problems

The part ware I will agree about MMORPGs is that it seams rather well balanced, like most MMORPGs or the good ones anyway.

[HairyHeretic]

And it looks like a pre release copy of the 3 books may have leaked online, assuming they're legit.

[Starr69]

Geez. That was fast.

[The Great Triangle]

I'm putting ten to one on the leaked books being loads of Lolicon myself.

[Far eyes]

Hehe well its possible this or that way.

*Goes to check*

[Starr69]

I have no official comment other than.. "I didn't leak 'em." :D
:-X

[OldSchoolGamer]

Keeping in mind that some critters don't understand tactics. Many low-Int monsters use the tactic of "run forward and attack the closest thing" or "charge, then run away if I get hurt" or even "Sit back and see how it goes for the others before leaping in or running off." Most trolls, ogres and animals aren't reading the works of Cao Cao Mengde, Zhuge Liang Kongming or Sun Tzu.

True.  But some creatures have a cunning or instinct that makes up for low intelligence.  Consider ants. 

[Far eyes]

So apparently some pre print editions of the PHB/MM/DMG had bin leaked and apparently they are the pre prints. And apparently 4e is going to be prty awesome from what I can apparently tell

[kongming]

True.  But some creatures have a cunning or instinct that makes up for low intelligence.  Consider ants. 

The tactic ants use is "swarm them in a huge mass and try to beat them with numbers." They still don't make use of choke points, carrying stuff to use as shields to form shield walls, cutting foes off from each other so as to surround them better or anything. So yes, some animals may use tactics along the lines of "hide, leap out and try to hamstring them. Then either flee or go for the throat, based on the outcome." But I have yet to see anything that great.

Whereas too often I see GMs treating every foe like a master tactician.

[RubySlippers]

True.  But some creatures have a cunning or instinct that makes up for low intelligence.  Consider ants. 

And goblins as an example are likely the weakest of the humanoid creatures but they survive so likely use cunning and their advantages. Plus its not rocket science to send enough goblins in to test the enemy, the guy in robes gestures and fries a group to figure out that is a dangerous enemy. Once they figure that out I would have the goblins use arrows and traps to full effect, a fighters zone of threat effect will be of little use if they pull out a support and collapse the ground under him so he is 3/4 in the ground and they stab away with daggers as he struggles out. For them I tend to think outside the box. And even a mages Protection from Missles sorts of magic can't stop a burning shower of tar. In other words be crude but creative using tactics the enemy might have developed over many years of trial and error passed down to the youngsters. And wouldn't they have veteran fighters and leaders who are above average, I would think a 20 year old Goblin would be a savy bastard leading the others.

It seems to me every tactic they created and added screams a way for goblins or orcs or kobolds to get around the problem. If fighters stands and deliver then they just don't play that game if they can find another option. Like a fighter with a sword is also not moving around so ranged attacks might be a good option if they are using archery as a specialty then charging them in a group might be best. GM's just have to be practical and run them right and the goblin could take down a party of even higher level characters.

[Zakharra]

 Goblins and orcs live in caves.. Collapsing tunnels anyone? Or a purposefully caused flood?  Or an avalanch...
<_<     

>_>

Kind of hard to fight when you are buried under several tons of loose rock.

[Edited for spelling error]

[Zakharra]

 Back on topic. The people I've heard talking about it, say it blows chunks. I haven't paid much attention to it myself, since I can't under stand 3E myself. I'm a 2ed girl through and through for PnP.

[Far eyes]

I have seen the 4e phb

I have to say its better then I expected. The feel is a lot nicer then what 3e was. Its more stream lined and I feel good improvements have bin made.

Rituals are awesome and it really dos look like magic items have less of an impact. There are no more crap Weapons or Armor. Everything is usable and theasable

[RubySlippers]

Well I reserve my comments to say I have played it and its not my cup of tea, but for the core rules set being only around $60 you can do far worst for the game to get it if you do like the system.

[HairyHeretic]

I haven't given it a try, and have heard mixed reviews. Given my group already has several ongoing games, and more backlogged we'd like to play, I can't see us trying this any time soon.

[kongming]

http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=48645&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Detailed information provided. A few notes:

Traps are more interesting. Now you actually interact with them a bit, rather than a single "it gets you" or "it doesn't". That is good.

The combat is more balanced, by dint of everyone being utterly shit. Remember fighters in mid-high level D&D, and how they can't do anything useful without DM fiat? Yeah, now everyone is playing that game. All abilities are essentially "You deal a little damage and maybe cause a cute effect."

Indeed, the things players can do is sort of limited to levels 1-10 of 3E. Note that 11+ is my favourite region. So if someone really wants me in their 4E game, they're basically going to have to houserule the power and cool stuff back into it, or start it at level 20+. And trust me, everyone wants me in their game :D

Oh, and the rules don't cover/encourage things that aren't related to stabbing people in the face, but let's be honest: neither did any of the previous ones. That stuff is handled by roleplaying without the rules, and everyone is happy about it. But this one doesn't even do much in the way of "spells that aren't used to kill people".

Sounds like it's good for a con game, or some other "We'll play it for a session and not make a campaign out of it."

[Jefepato]

But this one doesn't even do much in the way of "spells that aren't used to kill people".

As I understand it, spells that aren't used to kill people are mostly categorized as "rituals" now.  I'm uncertain how well it works in practice, but I like not having to choose between magic missile and comprehend languages in the morning.

Although I agree that the classes look rather bland now, I'd prefer to give it at least a little playtesting before presuming suckage.

Also, fun info: the 4e tarrasque has an aura that drags flying creatures down (finally they learn!), and the core MM has stats for friggin' Orcus.

[Vekseid]

My impression: This could have been incredibly awesome. There are a lot of good ideas in 4e.

It's pretty obvious that what they wanted was something that they could very easily translate into a computer game on a level similar to that of World of Warcraft. You have two (three if human) at will attack powers, a few encounter attack powers, a few daily attack powers, and a few 'utility' powers (usually daily or encounter). Less than twenty total at 30th level.

To me, that's a bit on the wtf side. They tried very hard to balance things and it feels like everyone suffers from it.

A lot of the spells got moved into rituals, and wizards have an easier time swapping their utility and daily powers around, of course. But even a 30th level wizard can only know a dozen daily attack spells (with a given feat) of which he has to choose four for a day.

There's no sultans of smack here. Meteor Swarm will do, on average, about 40 damage for a reasonably well-kitted wizard. A typical 3rd level orc will survive that.

Minions having 1 hp is a bit odd. It somewhat reduces the impact of uber area effect spells like that.



It would be a fun exercise to get a small group together and start merging the good ideas in here with the SRD and call it our own.

[Jeramiahh]

Meteor Swarm will do, on average, about 40 damage for a reasonably well-kitted wizard. A typical 3rd level orc will survive that.

Yes, but, at the point you have meteor swarm, if a '3rd level orc' is on the field, he should be a minion. That's the idea behind minions; you throw them at the players at the appropriate levels, and they represent a monster that was powerful when they were weaker, and are now still potentially threatening and damaging, but easily disposed of. It allows for lower level monsters to have a lot of HP, but, when they reappear, their HP is so low, it's not even kept track of, because of the power difference.

4e's really emphasizing the concept of "HP is not wounds, it's ability to fight." They even imply it directly in the stats; you aren't even actually wounded in any way until you reach half HP, and the enemy's drawn first blood, or at least, that's how I interpret bloodied, and how I'll be describing it. That actually makes a duel between equally skilled swordsman a possibility; they're not actually *hurting* each other, every swing that 'hits', they're maybe jarring their opponents sword into their arm, making their arm numb, or forcing them to dodge and land funny, or take a roll and get a minor bruise as they roll over something. Look at the Pirates of the Caribbean movies; you have swordfights that go on for ten minutes or longer; literally over a hundred rounds of D&D combat... yet very little blood is drawn. Why? HP are an abstraction.

And that post was not meant, originally, to be nearly that long.

[Vekseid]

That really wasn't the point... That's not even 5% of a 29th level creature's hit points. You're doing 20 damage with magic missile and 40 with meteor swarm...

[OldSchoolGamer]

For me, the newer systems of D&D just don't have the appeal the original does.  The game has moved away from the concept of greenhorn, first-level adventurers with few powers testing their wits and steel and beginner's magic against a hostile world, and toward power-gaming, bonus-stacking, and abundant magic on every street corner.

Maybe I'm just waxing nostalgic for those first D&D games I played a quarter of a century ago...

[Starr69]

For me, the newer systems of D&D just don't have the appeal the original does.  The game has moved away from the concept of greenhorn, first-level adventurers with few powers testing their wits and steel and beginner's magic against a hostile world, and toward power-gaming, bonus-stacking, and abundant magic on every street corner.

Maybe I'm just waxing nostalgic for those first D&D games I played a quarter of a century ago...

First of all, let me say I agree with you - though I still have the urge to play 4E - simply because I think it will invigorate my players into wanting to play again.

Now that I'm not totally derailing - does your avatar mean you're here on earth to steal our water supply? :)

[OldSchoolGamer]

Now that I'm not totally derailing - does your avatar mean you're here on earth to steal our water supply? :)

And your women, yes.   ;)

Actually, I'm going to be starting a V-based game here sometime in the next couple weeks.

[kongming]

For me, the newer systems of D&D just don't have the appeal the original does.  The game has moved away from the concept of greenhorn, first-level adventurers with few powers testing their wits and steel and beginner's magic against a hostile world, and toward power-gaming, bonus-stacking, and abundant magic on every street corner.

Maybe I'm just waxing nostalgic for those first D&D games I played a quarter of a century ago...

Yeah, my guess is that you had great games with the older editions, and either Nostalgia-block or outright bad experiences with 3E. I never played a 2E game I liked, and people had to drag me into a 3E game, and I eventually found that I liked it, at certain levels and with certain DMs. Presumably 2E could be fun for me, but I've yet to see it happen, and I'm not going to bother learning the rules for it just so someone can try to awaken the magic of it.

And 4E... well, I just don't know. On the plus side, a glimpse through the PHB seriously taught me how to play the game. It's good when the rules are simple, although from the sound of it, every single monster, ability or "other thing" will have an exception to those rules, and these exceptions won't be standard "It has the Banana quality" (allowing you to read up the Banana quality and understand what that does with everything possessing the Banana quality). But it looks simple.

And it seems the best way to make friends is to clobber people down to "bloodied", then Intimidate them (+15 at first level is the best I managed, with a quick look). They then surrender, so you can take the time to make them into a willing servant and send them off to sacrifice their lives for the greater good. At least the DM doesn't have to say "No, fuck off, you're not talking your way out of everything" - there gets to be half a fight each time.

But a lot of it just seems to be complete balls. Maybe what it really needs is for the cool stuff to be injected back in (or dragged back to proper levels). I mean, regular punks belong at level 1 or less, LotR at level 5, maximum. From there, it's "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" up until 10th, and after that you pick up "Homer" and "The Iliad". THIS IS SPARTAAAAAAAAA!

With the highest levels being Makai Kingdom.

"I couldn't see where I was going, so I accidentally collided with a few planets on my way here. I assume they're destroyed. I do apologise."

Interesting Note: The Gaming Den predicted it would be bad, so we did sort of have low expectations which made us *look* for problems. But there are genuine issues. And really, it was made by Mike Mearls, who hasn't an actual success to his name and who, when having a certain task, decides that's too hard and therefore mustn't be that important.

[Starr69]

And your women, yes.   ;)

Actually, I'm going to be starting a V-based game here sometime in the next couple weeks.

Ooh. I'll keep my eyes open. :) I remember when that and the Final Battle first aired. I used to always make my brother laugh because I could imitate the vibratey-speech-patterns of the visitors. :)

As for 4E, I did some more reading last night... the game seems to lend itself towards big, showy "I am so very cool!" maneuvers, but light on anything that promotes RP.

Still - can't wait til my books get here next month.

[RubySlippers]

Well I played this again, and I will say this on my end. Its not a very good role-playing system but a great war game. Its all rules I just don't get it everything seems to have a rule and the monsters are well, all monsters. None are really worth talking to and dealing with its bust open door, kill monsters, take treasure then repeat as far as I can tell.

Well there are enough other options out there thankfully such as the Basic Fantasy RPG, Zephr and others and many free to get rules even DND 3.5 and these three are all free online.

I'm cheap.  ;D

[gideonblake]

With the highest levels being Makai Kingdom.

"I couldn't see where I was going, so I accidentally collided with a few planets on my way here. I assume they're destroyed. I do apologise."

What is Makai kingdom? Cause I wanna do that :P

[Vekseid]

What is Makai kingdom? Cause I wanna do that :P

It's a predecessor to Disgaea, which is made of concentrated win and awesome, and where you can do damage in the millions.

[kongming]

Actually, Makai Kingdom was made and released after Disgaea, but before Disgaea 2 and, while set in the same setting, isn't really linked to it.

It's a turn-based tactical game, where stats can get obscenely high, and the story scenes are outright hilarious. Also, weapons range from the katana to the flamethrower to the "UFO-yoink!" to the fishing rod (you can whirl the target around the entire planet with it).

[Vekseid]

I stands corrected :x

Still, seems like the same league... Makai and Disgaea, I mean. High level 4th edition D&D has nothing on them >_>

Still want to get a team together and make an erotic SRD <_<

[OldSchoolGamer]

That pretty much confirms my suspicions.  3.5 and 4 are tactical games, meant to be played with lead figures, simulating battles.

Nothing wrong with that.  But it's less of a role-playing game than 1 and 2.

I think the 4th Ed. rollout may lead to a revival of Second Edition amongst traditional role-players, which would be good.

[kongming]

Mostly it's made everyone create their own version. Seriously, if people didn't like 1 & 2 E before, they won't suddenly like it now just because 4E sucks. They'll either stick to 3.5 or make their own.

It looks like 4E would make a good tactical wargame (except for the bit where a simple 4 players against 1 enemy can last for hours as they slowly chip away at its HP in a big game of padded sumo). 3E, not so much. Yes, most things are based on combat, but it provides the options to not do that, and characters/abilities seem to be a bit more complex and in-depth than a wargame can properly utilise. Aside from the time needed for character creation.

Incidentally, remember this: D&D 1E was born out of a tabletop wargame called chainmail. The idea was to take those wars and turn them into a series of skirmishes in dungeons. That was it, just 100% dungeoncrawl. 2E was seriously designed to continue doing that. They didn't have additional roleplaying options, and the only way they were less suited for wargaming was the fact that (at least in 2E) movement and ranges were very fuzzy - half the things didn't even have those.

[kongming]

Oh, and Vek: for which edition?

I mean, 3.X has the Book of Erotic Fantasy (published, makes "having sex" a skill, adds a new stat, makes Charisma even less useful than before - seriously, if they need to have a stat for "I'm pretty", then they can either fold it into Charisma or make it a feat (such a feat already exists), and doesn't touch non-con with a ten foot pole.) and the Guide to Unlawful Carnal Knowledge (free Internet stuff, makes "having sex" a skill but is marginally better in the approach than the BoEF, a bit too complicated when all you want to do is have sex, a lot of the options will never be taken by people who want to have effective characters (when the game is about stabbing people in the face, you probably can't afford to spend a feat on being extra tight or extremely well hung) and the others actually do give serious power).

Then there's the Nymphology, a published book that just has a few magic items, spells, prestige classes and the like for sexual magic. Mostly it's college humour though *sighs* Examples include "Ray of Nipple Hardening", "Bigby's Groping Hand", "Mordenkainen's Magnificent Brothel" and the dreaded enemy, the "Bearded Clam".

Oh, and the fairly large pdf I made for incorporating combat-spanking into the game. Mostly just for the lulz, because I was bored.

---

For 4E, it would be incredibly easy. Step 1: take abilities that already exist. Step 2: rename them and change the flavour. Step 3: Get hired by WotC, because that's exactly what 90% of their abilities are - the same thing written differently.

[RubySlippers]

Mostly it's made everyone create their own version. Seriously, if people didn't like 1 & 2 E before, they won't suddenly like it now just because 4E sucks. They'll either stick to 3.5 or make their own.

It looks like 4E would make a good tactical wargame (except for the bit where a simple 4 players against 1 enemy can last for hours as they slowly chip away at its HP in a big game of padded sumo). 3E, not so much. Yes, most things are based on combat, but it provides the options to not do that, and characters/abilities seem to be a bit more complex and in-depth than a wargame can properly utilise. Aside from the time needed for character creation.

Incidentally, remember this: D&D 1E was born out of a tabletop wargame called chainmail. The idea was to take those wars and turn them into a series of skirmishes in dungeons. That was it, just 100% dungeoncrawl. 2E was seriously designed to continue doing that. They didn't have additional roleplaying options, and the only way they were less suited for wargaming was the fact that (at least in 2E) movement and ranges were very fuzzy - half the things didn't even have those.

Actually Original DnD came out of the Chainmail Tabletop Wargame, and 1E was developed out of the role-playing leanings of oDnD. (ok I'm a game geek, at least I'm a ravishing game geek-  ;))

[knightsdestiny]

I've really found it interesting to read this thread. I haven't made any attempt to play or run 4e just yet, most of the people in our group adverse to the idea.

I have to admit, though. I was a little skeptical. I wasn't too impressed with what WotC decided to do with the Saga Edition rules for Star Wars so I have been leary about the D&D. But on the other hand, I am like some and prefer the older editions.


And just as a side note because it was mentioned, I love Shadowrun(3e) :D

[NightBird]

Actually Original DnD came out of the Chainmail Tabletop Wargame, and 1E was developed out of the role-playing leanings of oDnD. (ok I'm a game geek, at least I'm a ravishing game geek-  ;))

And I don't think it's a coincidence that the roleplaying side of it had a lot of input from professional fantasy authors. A quote I read somewhere talked about how the writers in the gaming group kept telling stories they made up as the skirmish wargaming was going along, and that's where the 'role' side of it came out - interactive storytelling with dice to randomize events.

[Starr69]

And just as a side note because it was mentioned, I love Shadowrun(3e) :D

Shadowrun has such a rich and awesome history and tapestry of flavor - it's hard not to like it. I've played all the iterations (same as with D&D) and I think that it's the world that makes that game awesome, not the system, per se.

D&D I think had a great thing with Oerth and even Forgotten Realms. But the flavor is getting diluted.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Mostly it's made everyone create their own version. Seriously, if people didn't like 1 & 2 E before, they won't suddenly like it now just because 4E sucks. They'll either stick to 3.5 or make their own.

Maybe some of us in here should create a new system with d20 rules, that angles for the simplicity of Second Edition while taking some of the best features of 3 and 4.

[kongming]

It depends what you mean by the simplicity of 2E. For instance, it had the most annoying system for saves, but at the same time, if a DM wanted to make a fighter to oppose the players, he could do it in less than ten minutes without looking at the books. I recall a number of things working like that, actually. Really quick and simple to make

Although personally, I'd hate to play a game where, if I chose "fighter", that was it, I was seriously the same as any other fighter. It seems tricky - what's good for a DM (just rapidly making something with a couple of choices) is bad for a player (lack of options). One of the things I liked about 3E was that you could generally make the character as you pictured them - sometimes you had to dive through books for the right class or feat, sometimes you had to make your own up (and for the most part, that's not too hard if you don't ask for criticism on the WotC boards), and sometimes you had to start at a higher level, but it could be done.

So my guess would be to make a nice, simple core system, one that's easy to utilise, and then to allow a nice variety of options as you go along - but for the options to lack too much complexity (but to still be different). At certain points, you'd simply get non-combat abilities, and these could not be traded for more combat ones (and vice versa). There's nothing stopping us from making as many social abilities as combat ones (and then having exploration type ones as well), and gaining both at the same rate, with politics and social scenes having as many interesting abilities as face-stabbing.

Likewise, if something isn't too important, we could leave it out. After all, movement and ranges aren't that big an issue - if you're not using minis, you could just say "melee", "short range", "long range" and "too far". Obviously, attacks of opportunity would go out the window (do I hear a cheer from the audience?)

It could indeed be done.

Oh, and apparently a well-built cleric can do everyone else's job and wins the game in 4E. Some things never change.

[jisko888]

Oh, and apparently a well-built cleric can do everyone else's job and wins the game in 4E. Some things never change.

All hail Battle-Pope.

Thats why I loved cleric in 3.x, with the right feats and prestiege class, you could either be a healer, a damage caster, or a hardcore melee. Or all three at once (Mmmm, Ordained Champion, how I love thee)

[Jefepato]

Oh, and apparently a well-built cleric can do everyone else's job and wins the game in 4E. Some things never change.

'Splain me how, please?

I haven't looked at the classes extensively, but the way things work in 4e would seem to make this a lot harder than before.

[kongming]

Step 1: You have an 18 in Wisdom. 20 if there's a race that boosts it, because ability score bonuses mean more than they used to.
Step 2: Con and Dex get the rest of your attention.

Now, take any ability with the Radiant keyword. You are going to go around slapping people for Radiant damage, and doing at least as good a job as an actual blaster/striker. Sure, you won't get the proficiency bonus to hit, but you're targeting Ref instead of AC, so they don't get an armour bonus. In other words, just like everything else, it's a fake choice between two identical things with different paintjobs.

That is seriously all there is to it. You even get an ability that lets you zap people at will and provide a +5 (because your Wis is so high) bonus for everyone to hit the foe - and that is huge in this game. That's 25% of the possible rolled results that previously would have missed. Now they hit. So, you're a more-than-capable striker/blaster/whatever dumb name they call it, and you're a great leader as well! And no-one cares about defenders, because the dedicated defenders can't do a good enough job - no-one cares about them.

This has been named the Laser Cleric (TM). Take a feat to gain Intimidate, and you can now happily scare people into surrendering as soon as you make them bloodied, which is even better than a controller or whatever.

[The Great Triangle]

You know, I'd have to say that my least favorite thing about 4e is the removal of the chaotic alignment.

Also the multiclass rules are insanely underpowered.

Regardless, I'm going to be playing an unalinged Gnomish Warlord who is a lapsed follower of Sethanine and a part time rogue.

[Zakharra]

All hail Battle-Pope.

Thats why I loved cleric in 3.x, with the right feats and prestiege class, you could either be a healer, a damage caster, or a hardcore melee. Or all three at once (Mmmm, Ordained Champion, how I love thee)

A Healer, tank or DPS cleric. Same thing in WoW. Depending what talent tree you choose. One thing I like about WoW is you can respect your talents when you want to.

[kongming]

You know, I'd have to say that my least favorite thing about 4e is the removal of the chaotic alignment.

It's still there, sort of. I mean, Unaligned lets you be as Lawful or Chaotic as you want, Good can be Neutral Good OR Chaotic Good, and then there's Chaotic Evil.

Not that it matters. Law and Chaos didn't mean anything in 3E, and for that matter they didn't mean anything before that. It was just a throwback to the days where "Lawful == Good" (once upon a time, Elves were Lawful) and "Chaotic == Evil, except for where it doesn't" (Djinn were described as Chaotic, but good natured). You'll notice that they can't make their minds up on what Law/Chaos mean, and even in the description under "Alignment", they're so vague and non-opposed that you could easily qualify for both at the same time.

[Starr69]

Actually got to play this today with a couple of my players - and a very very quick review of things I remember:

Once everyone knew what their powers/attacks were, combat was very swift.
There's *always* something you can do, apart from "hit it with stick".
While clerics are not necessary -  they sure do  make life easier. :)
Wizards can't be killed at first level by an ordinary housecat.

[Vekseid]

Oh, and Vek: for which edition?

I mean, 3.X has the Book of Erotic Fantasy (published, makes "having sex" a skill, adds a new stat, makes Charisma even less useful than before - seriously, if they need to have a stat for "I'm pretty", then they can either fold it into Charisma or make it a feat (such a feat already exists), and doesn't touch non-con with a ten foot pole.) and the Guide to Unlawful Carnal Knowledge (free Internet stuff, makes "having sex" a skill but is marginally better in the approach than the BoEF, a bit too complicated when all you want to do is have sex, a lot of the options will never be taken by people who want to have effective characters (when the game is about stabbing people in the face, you probably can't afford to spend a feat on being extra tight or extremely well hung) and the others actually do give serious power).

It would be based off of the 3.x SRD but entirely its own system, a la True20 or Mutants and Masterminds. I'd like to make something more akin to Exalted - shamelessly sexual. We don't need much of anything in the way of sex rules - provide die rolls for those who care to (sexual combat is a trope of some hentai settings, so it should be 'supported', but more of as a side thing).

It would be neat to actually incorporate a lot of the good ideas 4e has. I think it's possible to do a much, much better job, however.

[OldSchoolGamer]

It would be based off of the 3.x SRD but entirely its own system, a la True20 or Mutants and Masterminds. I'd like to make something more akin to Exalted - shamelessly sexual. We don't need much of anything in the way of sex rules - provide die rolls for those who care to (sexual combat is a trope of some hentai settings, so it should be 'supported', but more of as a side thing).

It would be neat to actually incorporate a lot of the good ideas 4e has. I think it's possible to do a much, much better job, however.

I'd like a slimmed-down system that actually lets DMs improvise rather than having everything decided by endless die-tossing.

When I DMed Second Edition games, I would hand out traits based on how the players role-played their characters.  A dwarf that always charged recklessly into battle, for instance, got this trait:

Hard Charger: Like the Spartans, you ask not how many, but where they are.  +1 to hit on first attack, +1 penalty to character's A.C. for opponent's first attack.

The player relished it, which made him charge recklessly all the more.  So about the time the dwarf became 4th level, I upgraded it to +2 on first 2 attacks, and +2 to A.C. for first two opponent's attacks.

A rogue who always hid in the foliage got the "Woodsman" trait, and a wizard who loved Magic Missile almost as much as life itself got the Missilleer trait which upgraded his Magic Missiles to d6s rather than d4s.  And so on.

[Vekseid]

That, I think, is basically what feats were supposed to be, but somewhere along the line the point got missed.

[kongming]

An over-the-top overtly sexual system in its own right would be cool. I take it people would be assumed to often fight while nude or in skimpy, revealing clothing, there'd be a range of special abilities that do embarrassing things or force arousal status effects and the like, as well as almost silly powers for players to shout out while the characters have sex? Classes based on different fetishes and things?

I could certainly get behind an idea like that.

[Vekseid]

An over-the-top overtly sexual system in its own right would be cool. I take it people would be assumed to often fight while nude or in skimpy, revealing clothing, there'd be a range of special abilities that do embarrassing things or force arousal status effects and the like, as well as almost silly powers for players to shout out while the characters have sex? Classes based on different fetishes and things?

I could certainly get behind an idea like that.

I had this idea that using powers (whether martial, magical, or social) would generate 'heat', to the point that any sort of covering on the body reflects and magnifies it. This includes permanent abilities as well which causes a bit of a problem for anyone who wants to be both powerful and modest.

Most people don't have such powers, so there is still a reason for plate armor, even the sexy kind (spoiled brats).

Magic is inherently based on life in all of its forms, and all magic derives energy from some life source - faith (prayers direct energy to a divine entity who can use it for themselves or grant it to others), emotions (not just sex, but humiliation and fear are also emotions), souls (the combined memories others have for a person, including themselves - the greater one's legend, the greater their soul energy - to have your soul consumed is to be forgotten), and of course raw life energy itself - potential life (ahem...), sacrifices, and those who cultivate it (druids and necromancers). Four branches of life, all of which can be both good or twisted evil depending on circumstance.

The idea is not to be explicitly about sex. There would be drugs and powers and even orders, but I want to give people the option of ignoring things they are uncomfortable with - maybe tag creations and sections in general so that topics can be avoided.

[The Great Triangle]

Woo Incarnamancy!

I wonder if that'll get ported over to 4E...

Everyone I've ever explained it to has said that it's the most evil thing they've ever heard of.

But what's wrong with using the power of unborn souls?  It's not like they mind, and really, you're just borrowing them.

[Vekseid]

It isn't, really, it's just a way to explain how fellatio can be a source of magic >_>

[kongming]

Ooh, I like some of those ideas. In other news, I've already started toying with such a system. Once there's enough to work as a groundwork, I'll post it up, and if people like it they can add to it. If they don't, they can make their own or attempt to convince me why it's bad.

[Vekseid]

Ooh, I like some of those ideas. In other news, I've already started toying with such a system. Once there's enough to work as a groundwork, I'll post it up, and if people like it they can add to it. If they don't, they can make their own or attempt to convince me why it's bad.

Right now I haven't started setting it to a system yet - at least, not set in stone. I was thinking of just making something d20-like as the base. I'm actually sort of up for the challenge of making it 'realistic' in terms of economy and such (not that complex, just realistic prices, ratios, and so on).

[NightBird]

I knew I said I'd never make the change, but I think I might like 4E. Looking over the books at my friends' place, and it's more interesting than I thought. Worth trying at least, if I take it from the perspective of it being its own thing and stop comparing it with 'how things were before.'

[HairyHeretic]

Its the nature of system games to compare the new edition with the old. I've seen it .. hell, I've probably done it myself.

[kongming]

Even aside from the comparisons, I don't like it in its own right - there are plenty of games that I objectively don't like. Think of it as being like "John Romero's Daikatana" - it's bad in its own right, but fails even harder due to having a lot of expectations to live up to.

That being said, having looked at various things in more depth, I'm probably willing to play around with it for a little bit - not enough to make a campaign out of, but enough for a bit of fun. And if someone said "You have to play a game. It starts at 1st level. Which edition?" I'd reluctantly choose 4E, because although it takes forever to level up, that almost never happens online anyway (or the DM waves their hand and says "Everyone levels up.") and at least they're a bit harder to accidentally kill in 4E, and you have more abilities at the start.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Having taken a look at the PH, I guess my question isn't whether 4.0 sucks or rocks, but rather, "Why upgrade?"  I'm not really seeing how 4.0 significantly improves the role-playing experience versus 3.x.  For that matter, I didn't really see how 3.x was that big of an improvement on 2.0--I think feats were a useful addition, the accounting in 3.0 was a little more straightforward, and multiclassing was better handled.  But really those were evolutionary, not revolutionary changes.

I don't see myself using 4.0...I think they screwed the pooch in eliminating multiclassing and not having bards and druids.  And why take away some of the alignments?  I understand that WoTC needs to roll out new products to make money, but the bottom line is that there's nothing preventing us from having a fulfilling, highly customizable role-playing experience with Third Edition, or even Second for that matter so long as DMs allow a little rule-bending here and there to let players customize characters and color a little outside the lines at times (I always did, as a player and DM).

At the end of the day, I can think of much better uses for $50 than this re-invention of the wheel.

[kongming]

Random note: Disintegrate deals an average of 32.5 damage (5d10+Int, which is 25) at the level you get it (level 19). A level 19 solo monster, the Beholder Eye Tyrant, has 900 HP. An Elder Green Dragon (level 19) gets 910. A non-solo (even though dailies are supposed to e saved up for solo enemies) level 19 Goristro has 450, and indeed a level 3 (non-solo) pseudodragon has 40.

That's right. On average, Disintegrate will not kill a creature that you were fighting 16 levels ago. It does not deserve the name.

Also, skill challenges do not work. At all.

[jisko888]

Random note: Disintegrate deals an average of 32.5 damage (5d10+Int, which is 25) at the level you get it (level 19). A level 19 solo monster, the Beholder Eye Tyrant, has 900 HP. An Elder Green Dragon (level 19) gets 910. A non-solo (even though dailies are supposed to e saved up for solo enemies) level 19 Goristro has 450, and indeed a level 3 (non-solo) pseudodragon has 40.

That's right. On average, Disintegrate will not kill a creature that you were fighting 16 levels ago. It does not deserve the name.

But now its not only your wizard doing damage to 19+ monsters, the fighter/ranger/everyone else is now keeping up,  so the 100-odd damage that the wizard would have done is now divided up among everyone else. Also, now that fort/ref/will work diferently, you're much more likely to actually hit with debuff efects. And with the save changes, that ongoing 10/5 of Disintegrate has a 50% (If using the orb Daily power, you can make it close to 80%) chance of lasting a good number of turns.

Also, skill challenges do not work. At all.

Yeah. I don't get them at all.

[kongming]

It's not that the others are keeping up to the wizard, it's that no-one, wizard-included, is keeping up with monster HP. It's like the designers thought high level (ie "more than 3") fights should be like MMOs, and completely forgot that people would have to sit there, rolling dice over and over again for seven and a half years per encounter.

Worse still is that player HP doesn't scale nearly as well, so pound-for-pound, monsters will TPK the party unless the party can lock the monster into place (slow+shove effects, immobilise etc.) - and once they do decide to do that, that's really the only tactic you have in the game, so that's what they do to every single monster.

And yes, the orb thing helps with the stupidity of saving throws. Except that it starts off with "better than 50% chance to save", high level critters just get a random bonus, and solo monsters seriously get a +5 slapped onto it.

The best Wizard spell is the level 1 "Sleep". Crank up your Wisdom (you may even want your Wisdom to outshine your Intelligence here), use the orb, and put things to sleep. Get the party to play stacks-on and kill them in their sleep.

Then you go and take the rest of the day off so you can cast it again tomorrow. Because it's the best ability in the game.

Oh, and I discovered the one good thing about powers that shift enemies: you can speed combat up *slightly* by shifting them upwards. They take a tiny bit of falling damage, but it adds up over time, maybe cutting an hour or so off the battle. Besides, it's funny to visualise.

[The Great Triangle]

I think it would be a good idea to actually get some high level play in before making these judgements.  The biggest problem with D&D 3.X at high levels was that HP didn't actually mean anything because everybody was using save or die effects or spells that did so much damage they practically were save or die.  Unless you found a way to drastically inflate monster HP, monsters were basically either "unhurt" "hurt" or "dead"

Especially using the fighter's abilities and being able to stack ongoing damage, I can see a high level 4 person party in 4.0 getting about 12-15 attacks per round easy.  If each attack does 20 damage average (not an unreasonable assumption at 30th level) then you're looking at about 250 damage a round on the low end, which will kill a monster with 1,500 hp in six rounds, which is around what most of the solo monsters around 30th level have.  Add in a round to get the ongoing damage applied, and another round to cover incapacitated PCs and spending actions to heal, and you're looking at about an 8 round battle, which is really a very satisfying sounding length for a battle. 

And that's just solo monsters, which are really a little bit wonky in the way they operate.  Really, I haven't run a battle in a tabletop RPG where a monster fought alone that wasn't phrased as being a slaughter for the monster in years, but a group of heroes fighting a single vastly more powerful monster is a trope of fantasy fiction.  I really wouldn't judge 4E just by the death of save or die though, or the inclusion of solo monsters.  They are, after all, an admirable attempt at genre emulation, which is particularly impressive for a part of the genre that translates really badly into games.

[Far eyes]

I have to say that to this point everybody I have talked to who has given the game a real shot liked it. The thing is you have to take off your 3.5 glasses, they screw up perception.

I had a party of 3 lvl 4 guys (Paladin, Fighter, Rogue) after throwing encounters of different levels at them the end result was that if they dig in their heals use their wits a party can face up to solo encounters of considerable power without being plucked apart by the rain of 12 attacks like in 3e.

Generally their will be enough time to notice you are in trouble and get out. Or for your team mates to mount some form of defense. The rogue was getting hammered so the fighter used one of his powers to smack the Bugbare and slide it back, the rogue could run back

9 out of 10 times the designers of 4e picked fun over queasy realistic, and I agree with them. I don’t think I will stop playing 3e but for your heroic fun game 4e is better equipped. And dont forget this is all just PHB gaming at the moment so dont meshure it up against 3e and all the stuff

[MadPanda]

My tabletop group, consisting almost entirely of old grognards who first roleplayed when there was this blue and white covered book with a dragon on the cover, have decided to give the new edition a try...after two of them, one of whom is a WoW player as well, showed up for a promo event and got to try it for a few hours.

To quote, "it was almost like playing for the first time again!"

In short, they're both very excited about this.  One of them, who has almost never volunteered to run anything declared that given two weeks, he could throw something together.  And then he bought me a copy of the new PHB so that he wouldn't have to lend me his.

These are gamers, by the by, who seriously dragged their feet on touching anything d20 (and we still don't like 3.x very much, or Modern d20).  We'd take True d20 over OGL any day, given a choice.  In fact, we'd rather play something else entirely.

So I'm willing to reserve judgment until we actually try this puppy out around the tabletop.

[Jefepato]

Oh, and I discovered the one good thing about powers that shift enemies: you can speed combat up *slightly* by shifting them upwards. They take a tiny bit of falling damage, but it adds up over time, maybe cutting an hour or so off the battle. Besides, it's funny to visualise.

I'm having Grandia III flashbacks now.

[Far eyes]

Shifting is a 5ft step you can not shift somebody up

I think you mean Slide, but I would still say no to sliding somebody up into the air. Sliding is strictly a horizontal affair.

[kongming]

It doesn't say that - it says you can push/slide them a number of squares. That includes "straight up", and in some cases it even makes the most sense. And really, it helps speed the game up!

I'll admit that I'm willing to try 4E - but only if given express permission to either change my numbers and abilities more or less as I see fit (ie "putting anything good back into the game") or to stop playing the moment I decide I was right all along (looking at the information is really a good way of knowing how it will work if you're good with rules. And I don't have to smoke a cigar, try sex with a man, or eat a paste of mashed up insects to know I don't like it, the same is true of this).

And it's a shame. It had potential. The problem is, to make an interesting, epic tale, a lot of stuff would have to be added to the game. 3.X merely needs certain high-level things to be ignored (such as "No you can't use your free Wish to wish for an item worth a million GP" and "We know polymorph spells don't work. Let's not use them, or only pick a few favourite useful-but-not-abusive forms.") to do that job well. Oh, and the addition of fighter-types that could be as good as casters (and the monsters they face).

So more changes would be needed for 4E to tell an interesting story than 3E. And this makes us* sad.

*us being the people of The Gaming Den

[Far eyes]

I would still absolutely disagree with letting anybody tray to sneak extra damage out of a power by moving things up into the air. And I still disagree that it is intended or can even be read into the rules, lets just say it’s a point we disagree at.

Don’t know, personally I have tried it and like it, it dos not emulate reality its not about that. If somebody wants to emulate reality precisely other systems will serve better, better then 3e for that matter or d20

Personally I have to say it’s a fun system and helps make a fun game, that’s enough for me

[jisko888]

So far, for my casual group, 4e is a hit. We just played through half of the "Keep on the shadowfell" And are all in agreement that it was the most fun we've had at 1st level, period. The low levels are such a massive improvement over 3.x just in terms of mechanics.

Also, "interesting" Is entirely up to the D and players to create an "Interesting, epic tale." And its almost easier to do so now, with both the variety of monsters in the MM, and the fact that things like Fort/Ref/Will are AC's now, instead of rolls. At the GamesDay thing, the last boss started casting from his ritual book while the two statues and the skeletons kept us occupied. So I used the Eladirn Fey Step to get through them and then used Mage Hand to jack his book. The DM didn't even have to look it up, and just said to roll INT vs Reflex, since that made the most sense in this case.

The whole system in general is much more intuitive, and if you have a good DM (Not just someone who knows the rules inside out) you can easily create almost any kind of adventure you want within the system.

Also, you can't use a push/pull/slide/shift effect to push something upwards. They're movement modes.

[kongming]

The reason why it can't make an interesting, epic tale is this: no-one can actually do anything.

Let's see, the players go from "slightly better than a town guard" to... "slightly better than they used to be". If given the choice between ten level 1 wizards and 1 level 20 wizard, I'd choose the ten. They can't take on armies, they can't even contribute meaningfully to large-scale things. They can't intrinsically build things (and sure, any DM can just handwave it and say "You build it", but that suddenly means you're *not using the system* to do stuff), convert people to their team (Diplomacy no longer even has any real guidelines, and apparently the difficulty depends on your level, so it doesn't get easier to make friends after you kill every dragon that threatens them. There are also no effects that make friends. None. At all.), can never fly for any real length of time (no-one cares about 5 minute flight outside of a battle)...

Essentially, the only things you can do are those written on your sheet. Those abilities, for the most part, are the same ability with slightly different numbers and minor changes to the effect (either lingering damage, stun, daze, pushing, knocking prone or immobilising. Hands-up who cares?) So as long as the exciting tale is about 3-5 people walking through a dungeon and using the same handful of abilities, over and over, on varying groups of enemies, then yes, it can do it. But if floating sky castles, gryphon-riding, army-slaying, or for that matter something as simple as rallying an army or animating the dead (note: no-one does that any more), then you can't use 4E for it. You need to either pick another system, or make shit up as you go along, playing a game known as "Magical Tea Party".

So yes, in theory, it is up to the DM and players. Except this time it is seriously up to them to say "Let's throw the book away and do it like this: ______" when they want something they can talk about later.

As for "the most fun we've had at 1st level", I imagine that if I play it, 1st level will be much better than it was in 3E. But try playing to 30th. You'll notice that your abilities are the same all the way up to 30, just about. So by the time you're level 10, you're saying "Hey, if this was 3E, we'd be doing amazing and fun things at this stage!" (and for that matter, because of the slow-ass levelling, reaching tenth will take as long as completing a campaign in 3E). The fact that 1st level is shit in 3E is simple to work around: start somewhere near the 10th mark. Show me anything in 4E that's as cool as 10th+ in 3E.

[jisko888]

I'll let you know how it plays at level 30. We're giving ourselves a couple weeks to make sure we have all the rules down before we run level 30s vs Orcus.

And also, I'm not even quite sure you've even read the books completely through. About the only thing thats "missing" Is crafting. And due to the huge exp costs associated with items with any worth, and the fact that only two core classes could really do it, meant that players largely ignored it and simply ignored it. (Or if playing with eberron, simply used an artificer to churn out items using retain essence and the craft reserve, to basically get items for half price, provided you had a few days to kill in the campaign.)

The system is tooled around combat, with many of the non-combat system elements removed. And guess what, that makes it BETTER. Now you need to convince your DM with what you actually say to earn the trust of a cohort, rather than simply rolling the die and asking if it beats the DC. Your own actions should determine what you can do and, and not simply what the table in your class entry says.

And yes, variety is indeed a little low. But there's only THREE BOOKS. My groups 3.5 library consists of about 40 odd books, but how long did it take to get there? And heck, its only been a week and there's already free 4th edition content up at Wizards. (New Demonomicon entry, and stats/history for playing Warforged characters.)

And also, there's no animate dead spells because the Evil half of the old PHB has been cut and put in the DM's guide/future books. And I like it, because it keeps basic players focused on the good side of alignments (where they should be for 99% of campaigns)

Also, doesn't the idea of "Just start at 10th in 3.X" Kind of defeat the purpose of even having those levels? They've taken the fun of 10+ and made that fun kick in at 1st, and it doesn't leave when you get to 30th.

[kongming]

And also, I'm not even quite sure you've even read the books completely through.

I read the PHB through, and I skimmed the MM and DMG.

About the only thing thats "missing" Is crafting.

I merely meant building stuff, not the actual magic item crafting. But how about: Flying for more than 5 minutes? Changing forms? Animating dead? Befriending exotic beasts that you then use as flying mounts? Raising armies? Being able to fight large armies? Teleportation to places other than those in your immediate vision?

For many of those, the simple reason is "They caused problems in 3.X, and we're too lazy/incompetent/stoned to actually fix the problems. So we'll just remove them entirely."

The system is tooled around combat, with many of the non-combat system elements removed.

Almost. That basically is true, except they provide just enough information to effectively say "You cannot do this". For instance, the classic spells that make short-term friends just flat-out don't exist, so you have to use diplomacy... which doesn't have standard difficulties for, say, convincing the barkeep to put it on your tab. So everything is magical tea party. The flight thing can't happen, because there are rules for 1/day 5 minute flight, so any kind of "Fly across the world" directly contravenes that.

Now you need to convince your DM with what you actually say to earn the trust of a cohort, rather than simply rolling the die and asking if it beats the DC. Your own actions should determine what you can do and, and not simply what the table in your class entry says.

Good idea. Also, none of this "make a strength check" stupidity. Players should prove that they are strong enough to do those tasks by breaking the door. Instead of just rolling a die for combat, they should try to hit the DM in the face with a wooden sword. And casters? Oh come on, they shouldn't just look at their sheet, the player should cast a real spell.

You see the problem with what you say?

And yes, variety is indeed a little low. But there's only THREE BOOKS.

A little low? Almost every non-utility power is exactly the same thing! It's fake choice! The PHB of 3.5 allowed for actual choices - classes actually did vastly different things, there were abilities that weren't "Enemy takes ___ damage. Also, they are slowed/shifted/dazed for a round."

playing Warforged characters.

I won't hold this against 4E - after all, they were sadly playable in 3E too. But it was still a shitty choice.

And also, there's no animate dead spells because the Evil half of the old PHB has been cut and put in the DM's guide/future books. And I like it, because it keeps basic players focused on the good side of alignments (where they should be for 99% of campaigns)

I don't know where to start... animating the dead is and isn't evil - they couldn't make their mind up. But I see you've made yours up. It isn't in the DMG (other than "These things exist as the animated dead."), and it probably won't be in future books because it is something that isn't exactly the same as what everything else is doing, and they try to avoid things being different.

And if they really want to force players to play the good guys, they shouldn't even pretend evil is a choice, not just deny them nice things but offer good guys nice things. Besides, their approach to alignments has always been utter balls, and all of the cool deities are evil. Most of the best creatures too, for that matter.

Also, doesn't the idea of "Just start at 10th in 3.X" Kind of defeat the purpose of even having those levels?

Sure it does, unless someone else likes helping old ladies cross the street and finding buckets for people, and thus likes the early levels. But still, yes, if I were in control, the game would start at tenth, with previous levels existing for NPCs. No, I wouldn't rename 10th as 1st. Everyone would have ten levels to play with upon starting.

They've taken the fun of 10+ and made that fun kick in at 1st, and it doesn't leave when you get to 30th.

I can only assume you're on crack.

That fun of 10+ does in no way kick in ever. You can not do the Lu Bu routine and be the sole contributor to victory in an army. You cannot be so important that kings plead for your assistance and offer rewards instead of just saying "Do it, otherwise I'll have some guards kill you, and tell a different replaceable group of guys to do it." You cannot have any kind of interaction with monsters that isn't "fighting them" - you can't play as them, you can't team up with them in any way at all, you can't turn into them, you can't ride them into battle, the game even frowns upon you setting down for tea and biscuits with them. You can't command the awe and admiration of everyone as you walk through the streets. You cannot fly or teleport from city to city. You cannot summon things. You cannot black out the sun, or reduce a town to ashes, or place long-lasting curses.

You... can walk through dungeons and use the same few abilities over and over, slowly chipping away at the health of enemies.

[jisko888]

*hands in the air* Ok, you know what, ok. You don't like 4e, I get it. I won't even say to go play it, since your mind is so made up already that you'd probably just walk away from the table when you found out you can't do what you could do in 3.x by drawing from four different books, or use an obscure effect that was generally underused in the first place, or wasn't in the original core books anyways. (Hint, that would be everything you described except animate dead (Which yes, was an evil spell, being from the necromancy school)) I'm not the only one with a made up mind it seems, although I've actually played it.

But hey, at least you'll be able to keep playing 3.x. Its not like the books suddenly caught fire. Just gotta hope your group shares your opinion completely.

Good idea. Also, none of this "make a strength check" stupidity. Players should prove that they are strong enough to do those tasks by breaking the door. Instead of just rolling a die for combat, they should try to hit the DM in the face with a wooden sword. And casters? Oh come on, they shouldn't just look at their sheet, the player should cast a real spell.

And this is the only part I'll directly respond to. Because its just a liiiitle bit stupid. I've played waaay too many campaigns where everyone's favorite 20 comes up and lets the party befriend an ally/monster that's way too strong for them, but the rules now say it's their friend, at least for a little while. And its not fair for the DM to simply fiat it away, since the rules state what the players did was perfectly fine and dandy. Sure, I could say it doesn't work, but then I'm setting a precedent, which discourages players from trying other crazy things that are perfectly fine to attempt (Hurling the halfling at the flying wizard to knock him out of the air)

This gives the DM control over how NPCs/monsters enter and exit the campaign. Which is exactly how its supposed to be. It forces your players to actually role play out what their character says, which was irrelevant in 3.x, you just threw the D20 and whatever it said is what you say.

[kongming]

*hands in the air* Ok, you know what, ok. You don't like 4e, I get it. I won't even say to go play it, since your mind is so made up already

I happen to actually be good with the numbers and reading into these things and predicting how they'll play out. Hell, I happen to share the opinion in this case with someone who accurately told WotC exactly what would go wrong with 3E before it was released. And they elected to ban him from the message boards instead of listen, because solving a problem is harder work than just fooling people into praising your name.

you'd probably just walk away from the table when you found out you can't do what you could do in 3.x by drawing from four different books

Just about everything I listed there was a core ability, or simply a side-effect of how the rules worked. And when "what you could do in 3.x" includes "anything interesting", I think "I can't do it any more." is a valid criticism. I don't know, maybe you do like the idea of battles taking hours, with repetitious combat ala WoW but where players are forced to roll the dice for all of these things instead of clicking on the enemy then wandering off to do something fun.

animate dead (Which yes, was an evil spell, being from the necromancy school)

See, now I know you don't know what you're talking about. How about saying "It has the [Evil] tag" - that means it has to be evil. The school of Necromancy does not, and even the concept doesn't - I've seen games where Necromancy could be a valid power for good. WotC even made a "Good Lich" that casts Animate Dead as a spell-like at will.

I'm not the only one with a made up mind it seems, although I've actually played it.

You played a small segment of it - incidentally, the part that is the most attractive (1st level being better than that of 3E). I've properly examined it and am used to WotC churning out piles of shit, so I actually didn't put my rose-tinted glasses on.

Just gotta hope your group shares your opinion completely.

Mostly they do - or they wait for my opinion because I think things through better. Except I live hundreds of miles away now, in this shit state where I have no contact with my friends, so really, it's imperative that I do convince people here to see the light and realise how shit this game is. Otherwise, short of abducting people on the street and forcing them to game with me, I do run out of my game of choice.

And this is the only part I'll directly respond to. Because its just a liiiitle bit stupid.

Of course it was stupid - but it was taking your statement to its logical conclusion. Look, I get it, it's important that the game not degenerate into the boring rolling of dice - after all, that's why I argue against this very system, because "combat = nothing more than rolling dice" and "combat takes forever". However you have to let people use their characters to cover their own abilities. I can't speak well off the top of my head, I have to prepare a speech to do it well. A tabletop game doesn't give me the time to do that. I'm not very good at threatening people, and awful at lying, so I'd much rather say "I threaten, using this angle (point out the basic "what I threaten him with") and trying to get this result ("what I want from him")." and roll a die - or to say "I try to make a believable lie - I don't know, I'll say something he wants to hear." and roll.

Otherwise we're getting people to play as themselves. And I don't want to play as me. And if I did have to do that, I'd certainly use my own knowledge to cultivate opium from poppies, mass produce narcotics and get rich in-game that way, as well as poisoning foes with lethal doses.

So I don't get it. Are you telling me I can't play someone intimidating? Or is it specifically a problem with it being *just* a die roll, and you a least want people to put a tiny bit of thought in and say what they're aiming for?

[OldSchoolGamer]

Part of the reason Second Edition was my favorite version was precisely because it didn't try and cover every aspect of an encounter or character's actions.  Heaven forbid a DM should have to actually think outside the box, assign a percentage chance to a character being able to do something based on circumstances, toss the dice, and render a verdict...

[JadeCore]

Man, this is sounding like an MMO forum.

At any rate, I would like to insert an insight someone else made. That is, simply, 3e and 4e are developed under very different premises. 3e was designed to simulate a reality and the works of it - it told you how things worked so it wanted a lot of 'stuff' to do that with. If you want to do something, you needed a specific rule. 3e is a rules-simulation: break something down into numbers, determine based on a result. 3e attempts to determine how a fantasy setting would work.

4e was designed to simulate the effects of actions - it doesn't care how you get somewhere or even if it makes sense, only that something -did- happen. Stuff makes sense because someone tried it not because the laws of physics allows it. 4e is a role-/situation-simulation: break something down in to actions and figure out that interaction. 4e attempts to describe how fantasy appears and behaves rather than how it works..

This change in how the game approaches any given situation is perhaps, among many other reasons, why some folks do not like 4e. Some want a simulation. Others, they want action.

Take this situation. Someone is standing on a table. Someone else wants to knock the table over to get the person off.

3e asks: Reflex vs DC X (Are the person's reflexes good enough to land on their feet). The rules break down each portion of what happened to see if the chain of events is possible. Depending, other checks may be asked for like a Strength Check or give a bonus for something (using mechanical leverage to move the table).

4e asks: Attack (or what ever it's called) vs Reflex (Does the person move the table in some way significantly enough to unbalance the other person). All interactions are handled by the idea of an action and the effect of it. This action being some sort applied ability, whether it is Strength being added or a skill bonus added to the attack roll. It groups the events into a singular situation and just sorts out the results.

Now is either way, good or bad? No, it just depends on what you're looking for in your rules.

[Jeramiahh]

Yeah, that was the one thing I didn't like about 3e... "So, I want to do this absurd thing." "Ok, let me check and cross reference six different rulebooks that have this cool thing in them, so we can make sure it goes off correctly." I mean, FFS, they have rules in the DMG2 for fighting on swinging ropes, rickety bridges, and other odd terrain. While cool... it's also a bit stifling. The DM can't say "I want it to go like this," because some rules lawyer is going to say "But it's supposed to go like this." In 4th, like in 2nd, they actually give the DMs the guidelines for making the appropriate rules, but don't set in stone that grabbing a swinging rope is an AC 10 touch attack, and that you need to hit a DC12 str check to hold on and swing (15 if you do it one handed!), and that you need a DC 15 reflex save to catch yourself if you fall...

The point I'm trying to make is that they're taking a lot of power away from rules lawyers. Which is not a bad thing, IMHO. The solution I had to one of them was, essentially, "Fuck you. I'm rewriting the rules, so your absurdist logic no longer works here." Now, the rules lawyer has lost a lot of his stranglehold on situations, and the power is back in the DM's hands to control the flow of story, and ensure that Bob the Wizard doesn't just Forcecage/Cloudkill every creature that can breathe, or whatever broken combo of the week we're using, while poor Jim the Fighter sits there with his thumb up his ass, waiting to be handed a shiny new trinket, or to fight some scrub the wizard is too busy to waste in six seconds.

I'm the guy who plays the wizard, and I'm complaining. When at 7th level, I know, for absolute certain, I can win one encounter a day, with just me and the rogue, something's wrong. (Greater Invis + Polymorph into a hydra on the rogue. *grin*)

[kongming]

Well as much as I like power (and "having to learn the rules") being in the DMs hands rather than "whichever player bought the newest book", rule 0 actually achieved everything that the "ground-breaking" design of 4E does: the DM could say "It works like this." - and had as much of a right to as they do now. But they could also check in obscure books for it if they felt like it.

The funny thing about swinging from a rope now is that, like everything else in the game, it seriously does scale with your level. So that same rope will become magically resistant to you, increasing the DC to make up for your increased ranks. Because heaven forbid the PCs ever be good at something.

Of course, now the DM doesn't even need to stay up-to-date with the rules. No-one does, really. Which is a good thing, but if given the choice between "4E - it's simple! ...and nothing else" and "the fun and options of 3.5, but with the complexity of AD&D+3.5+FATAL", well, I'd choose the latter. I think they decided making things simple is the most important thing in game design.

And where I come from, being a rules lawyer is a good thing: the DM just wants to run a fun game, and so when someone is faced with something they don't understand, another player (such as me, for one of the groups) is turned to to explain it in terms anyone can understand. I even made a little print-out, complete with chibi D&D characters and silly jokes, explaining the trickier aspects. And people learned as a result.

[Jeramiahh]

I've gotta say, even if you don't like 4e, even if you think the rules behind it disagree with roleplaying as a whole... everyone should read this guy's story. This is simply amazing, and shows exactly what 4e was written for, what is was meant to accomplish.

http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=6630

[LordAnubis]

I have to Agree to Kongming on one thing, Epic in this game leaves something to be desired.  The most desireable thing I've seen in some of the Epic level things is the Feats.  You don't become supremely awesome anymore.  How good or bad that is, I'll have to see as the game unfolds after our pratice game I think once per Day powers should at a minumum be Ability +2 because getting hosed out of those was annoying and given the infrequency you can use them, they should be more of a golden bullet then slightly higher calibur.

I asked some of the same questions about the animate dead and other missing spells.  Additional Classes.  As I've been informed they are going to be adding Necormancer and Druid to say the least, which would be getting necormancy and Transfiguration spells respectively.

Part of me likes that all a player even needs to holds it the player's guide, it covers magical items and everything else he needs without requiring them to crack open the books on the GM's end of the table.

I think one thing we should take into account is that there are only the three books out so far.  It is enough to play the game, as was the same set of books in 3.X, but you really got something out of the game when you added more books.  As the publish more, they should cover more options and realize 'oops we forgot'.

[Far eyes]

Well I would say that 3E and 4e are definitely meant for different things, bit have things they just do better.

But honestly I have always despised the typical party based game guan epic, because it becomes more and more ridiculous. I haven’t tried anything past lvl 11 in 4e yet but I have had the chance to tray in 3e and its just EGH some people like it but for me all it represents is the disintegration of the system

[Chris Brady]

Having played D&D from a single foray in red box, to 1e Oriental Adventures (I ran it solo for my brother, self-taught and everything) and then diving full head into 2e, then getting 3e, and now having tried the game day even on the 7th of June, I have to say:

4e is a better game than all I've ever played in the D&D line.  The characters felt useful, they always had cool things to do, and frankly, the game made sense in terms of a game.  And from what I can tell from reading a friends copy of the 3 core books, at least the fighter doesn't plateau at 3rd level (In AD&D 2e, before the Powers and Options stuff showed up, the fighter really had nothing more to look for other than magical toys), they also don't get trumped by magic users after level 7 (In which the properly prepared Cleric, Druid, or with the proper spells, the Wizard who after level 9 can BE the party.)  This looks good balanced fun.  Kinda like Disgaea and all the others in the line.

Is it what I want for my fantasy gaming, though?  I don't know.

Part of the issue was the fact that our GM wanted and used the minis provided and the moment he did, he became competitive and played to 'win'.  He used every dirty trick he could think of to TPK the party, which he did.  Despite the fact that some of the monsters weren't that smart.  He didn't get 'in character' because the minis changed everythihng in his mind.  It stopped being D&D and became DDM.

However, personally, I prefer to roleplay the non-combat stuff.  Lord knows that 'common sense' did not rule the day with 3.x, dear God the sheer amount of stupidity when it came to certain bits, like Diplomacy or Grapple.  I don't need rules to tell me how to play my character, and I trust my various players to not act like dicks, because we're friends first.  So, sorry White Wolf, but all your various mechanics to teach us how to play the game 'right' aren't necessary.

And honestly, I don't trust the judgment of sites like Paizo, the Gaming Den or Enworld, because they're all biased.  Paizo and the Gaming Den came in hating the very idea of 4th ed. straight out of the box, they did not want to like, and so, they don't finding each and every nitpick they could find.  There might be some legitimate gripes in there, but between the hyperbole and outright hatemongering, it's hard to see them.  Enworld is equally useless with it's gushing fans and pointless ravings over what could be, and their blindness to any faults.

But like every iteration of D&D the fan base is mostly polarized between irrational hate and love, with us fence sitters in the middle looking at you all with a mix of amusement and sadness.

However, my biggest beef is the actual system.  See, I'm torn.  On one hand I can understand and get behind every class having the same style of mechanics (The Dailies, at Wills and Encounter) but on the other hand, the flavour seems 'lost'.

I'm one of those idiots who, although wants every character to have the ability to do cool stuff, feels the need to differentiate between the Physical and the Mystical.  To ME, and JUST TO ME, I need something where the fighting men and women (Including the Skill Monkeys) have a certain method of resolving their fighting, while the Casters have something equally difficult but doesn't feel the same.

I'm pretty sure no one will understand what I mean, but that's my problem.

I'll play and run it though.  At least it's not Exalted, where the game actively hates those that want to run it.

[Far eyes]

Well in essence there is no perfect game, you have to chose do you want a brod spectrum realistic simulation D100 Gurps (In most cases) or do you want a heroic action game 4e. Do you want balance between the classes a single grid work system like 4e has or do you want unique feel of systems ware unavoidably their will be better and worst options.

For example I have 2 regular live games. In one we have switched to 4e because it just works better, we all enjoy RP and we do a lot of it but in essence most of the time we want puzzles and just some grand old DnD style dungeon crawling HnS fun.

In the other game we mostly stick to 3e witch has bin dismantled and frankenstained to he point of it being 3.7E Custom model. Witch fits that groups likes and needs perfectly or at least close enough. I have no reason to doubt we will stick to it for ever

[kongming]

And honestly, I don't trust the judgment of sites like Paizo, the Gaming Den or Enworld, because they're all biased.  Paizo and the Gaming Den came in hating the very idea of 4th ed. straight out of the box, they did not want to like, and so, they don't finding each and every nitpick they could find.

That really isn't true. Before we (The Gaming Den) started seeing what they were doing, we were seriously hopeful. There was *doubt*, but we had hopes. It's just that we quickly saw what was happening every time they released a preview or any time Mearls went and opened his mouth. Some of the earliest information really had us excited.

However, my biggest beef is the actual system.  See, I'm torn.  On one hand I can understand and get behind every class having the same style of mechanics (The Dailies, at Wills and Encounter) but on the other hand, the flavour seems 'lost'.

I know what you mean there - the three types of usage are very easy to understand, very elegant... yet many agree that it somehow loses the flavour. I put it down to everygoddamn attack being the same thing - it doesn't matter if you throw ice or lightning, because they both do XdY + stat damage, and knock the foe back a few squares or immobilise them for 1 round. It's all the same. Likewise magic/mundane all work the same and nothing feels different. It's gone past "Use your imagination a bit better" and well into "Imagination is taking a break now, you've overworked it. Admit it, it's the same."


Incidentally, someone is going to be running a game at Gencon, with marked off 5' squares, the players actually going around in real full plate. The game will still be played with rules and that, but it'll be a fun display. It is also designed to teach WotC (who will be there to witness it) how stupid the HP/damage ratio is (there's going to be a half-time break against the boss), and how useless any knock-back is (unless it is knock-back + immobilise, or knocks them back so far they can't just charge you, or knocks them up for falling damage), by having the people walk back the 15 feet, then just turn around and wander back to where they were after.

It sounds like it'll be fun even ignoring the "This will teach them" aspect. Running about in real (heavy) armour, pretending to smack each other with swords, making 5' steps, people dressed in Chinese dragon costumes...

Oh, and the Warlock is more interesting and balanced (it used to be far too weak) in 4E. As such I'm converting it back to 3E.