D&D 4th ed

[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.