Devs, please ignore 4th edition when it comes out.

[Gol]

I like multiclassing too much. For those that are wondering, multiclassing as we know it is completely gone from the 4th edition rules. Almost all attack spells require attack rolls, and all instant death spells are completely gone.

[vainangel]

I like multiclassing too much. For those that are wondering, multiclassing as we know it is completely gone from the 4th edition rules. Almost all attack spells require attack rolls, and all instant death spells are completely gone.

good thing
better balance and less abuse of classes and spells.

I like 4th Ed.

[Gol]

good thing
better balance and less abuse of classes and spells.

I like 4th Ed.
Perhaps, but if applied to DDO, it would totally estrange most of the current player base. I'd be a goner, that's for sure.

[vainangel]

Perhaps, but if applied to DDO, it would totally estrange most of the current player base. I'd be a goner, that's for sure.

i think it would effect how the game is played.
if you think about it the way ddo is set-up is counter to how DnD was.
You can somehow be Chaotic and be a Pally with some Barb?

yeah....

about that

[Borror0]

They have multiclassing feats... not have rread much about those though.

Anyway, they said they would look at it, not implement it 100%.

[Griphon]

Multiclassing IS NOT GONE from 4th edition.

If you've not seen the 'leaked' copies yet.. You can easily check out www.wizards.com as they have a 'sneak peak' at Multiclassing in their Dragon section that does a fairly confusing description about how it works.

[vainangel]

Multiclassing IS NOT GONE from 4th edition.

If you've not seen the 'leaked' copies yet.. You can easily check out www.wizards.com as they have a 'sneak peak' at Multiclassing in their Dragon section that does a fairly confusing description about how it works.

you can...but it is not the same nor do you get the same stacks of bonuses

[sirgog]

Multiclassing IS NOT GONE from 4th edition.

If you've not seen the 'leaked' copies yet.. You can easily check out www.wizards.com as they have a 'sneak peak' at Multiclassing in their Dragon section that does a fairly confusing description about how it works.

It basically is gone.

You can be a Wizard that has a touch of Rogue, but nothing like the current flexibility.


There were things in V3 that needed fixing (save or dies in particular), but V4 looks terrible.

It's like saying 'gee, my car is scratched, maybe I should fix that by burning it, then you'll never see the scratch again'.

[Griphon]

It's like saying 'gee, my car is scratched, maybe I should fix that by burning it, then you'll never see the scratch again'.


Yes. You should.
Can I watch? Cars go up so fast!!

So it's 'as good as gone', but 'still sorta kinda maybe there'.

So can you get the game basic 'ideas' in? A caster who can do rogue-ish things? A Ranger that is also a cleric of evil?

[Angelus_dead]

I like multiclassing too much. For those that are wondering, multiclassing as we know it is completely gone from the 4th edition rules.
For your information, the kind of multiclassing that is "gone" is the kind where the majority of straightforward combinations like fighter/wizard and fighter/cleric are so nonfunctional as to be stupid.

[Griphon]

From what I read...

It seems like you can still get the concept of Multi-class in, but with out the nasty mechanical problems they had last run.
meaning.. nobody dabbles in a **** load of classes just for mechanical/statistical increases to the character like they did... can we say: Sorc/Pally/Rogue... for ya know.. Uber Charisma hyped evasion please?

[Dungnmaster001]

I love 4th edition (what I've seen of it anyway).

Now that being said I'd agree the devs need to stay as far away from 4th edition as possible when designing things for DDO. Not because 4th editions is bad or that it would cause nerfs or anything like that.

Simply because it's too different and would need a FULL recoding from scratch to do 4th edition justice. The absolute worst thing I can imagine is a hodge-podge of 3.5 and 4th edition.

DDO needs to be one or the other to work well IMO. I'd love a 4th Edition MMO but I'd much rather it be "DDO 2" rather than being tacked on piece by piece on top of a system that wasn't designed for it from top to bottom.

[SableShadow]

Rewriting systems has never been particularly good for a game (think SWG NGE).

Drastic changes *can* be good for the game (CoX Enhancement Diversification) but even that change is still a hotbutton for many people even years later...and it didn't change the core functionality of the game.

[Delacroix21]

I for one have always enjoyed multi classing and creating a unique and custom character, but in PnP DnD this simply did not work! They added too many classes each with unique abilities, many of which when tied together became extremely powerful.


Characters that could easily rip apart a dragon or even a god! and i am not talking epic characters either!


DnD has needed a restructuring for some time and they needed to vastly reduce the 100s of classes that were added. This is a good change.

[Delacroix21]

I should point out that DDO itself could use some restructuring as well. Because do to monsters high saves, hp, to hit, etc. many things in DDO do not function well.


1. Instant death spells and weapons are king in DDO because mobs have far to much health at endgame.
2. AC is near useless at endgame with mobs (and players) crazy to hit bonuses
3. Spells with enhancements and items do 20 times the amount of damage a wand can, make wands useless
4. Monsters SR and saves are so high wand spells are always resisted anyway.
5. Combat feats DCs are too low when compared to monsters saves, leading a dwarven fighter with max strength and 5% weighted to still have his stun resisted almost every time
6. Much more, you get the idea

[Snoggy]

I
Simply because it's too different and would need a FULL recoding from scratch to do 4th edition justice. The absolute worst thing I can imagine is a hodge-podge of 3.5 and 4th edition.

I think you underestimate the developers. When presented with the challenge of prestige classes, they responded with prestige enhancements. The flavor of prestige, but in a way more comapitible with their game.

Keeping that in mind, I think they can creatively overcome the differences in ways that will allow them to reflect fourth edition.

[MageLL]

Somewhere I read that this game is based on 3.5 rules and will stay as such. That isn't to say they can't borrow ideas from 4.0. We just shouldn't expect to see this game morph into 4.0.

[Snoggy]

Somewhere I read that this game is based on 3.5 rules and will stay as such. That isn't to say they can't borrow ideas from 4.0. We just shouldn't expect to see this game morph into 4.0.

I don't think it's going to morph into 4.0 either. But like you say, they do intend to borrow some stuff. The game is going to keep evolving. Most MMOs do. And I'm confident the devs will find fun aspects of 4.0 and find creative ways to include them into the framework of DDO without having to a complete system reboot or really any kind of total overhaul of the code they already have.

[Kistilan]

I don't think it's going to morph into 4.0 either. But like you say, they do intend to borrow some stuff. The game is going to keep evolving. Most MMOs do. And I'm confident the devs will find fun aspects of 4.0 and find creative ways to include them into the framework of DDO without having to a complete system reboot or really any kind of total overhaul of the code they already have.

/QFT

They don't even have the time to get every bug out of the game. I don't think they would expend the resources to rewrite the very source code to change the game and EVERY MOB/CHAR/ITEM to a 4th Edition Rule Set. It would be like the SWG:NGE and that is hailed as the worst Video Game MMORPG Update in the History of MMOs. They literally did lose over 90% of their player base in what was little more than an overnight patch doing that. Turbine won't do it.

I think they might borrow from the Lore moreso or a few creative items and classes rather than the mechanics. They probably won't even consider touching the mechanics, which is what everyone is worried about concerning 4th vs 3.5.

[Accelerando]

/notsigned

We should switch immediately to 4.0
Please delete my bards and merge all my melee characters into one single character. This way I will have more room for monk
builds. :D

[Deriaz]

I'd agree, mostly on the fact that 4.0 to 3.5 (What little I know of it and of the knowledge I know of DDO). . . There's a huge difference.

Now, borrowing minor things from 4.0 that might make DDO more unique? I'm still for that. (Like Dragonborn. I can dream, right? :P)

-D

[Borror0]

Now, borrowing minor things from 4.0 that might make DDO more unique? I'm still for that. (Like Dragonborn. I can dream, right? :P)

I think that 4th Edition will be interesting to look at more and more as they seem to handle higher level better than in 3.5.

[Gornin]

4th edition is not DnD. It just has the same name.

[Halpo]

4th edition is just Wizard of the coast trying to soften D&D repackaging it up to make some fast cash because those of us that are old AD&D players might actually buy it. I for one will not buy it because I have truely not liked anything that has came out since AD&D. If the game would ever change to these new rules I would be glad to leave and go find a new MMO not like their are just a few out there. But just my thoughts I see 4th Edition failing becuase of rules.

[MysticTheurge]

4th edition is not DnD. It just has the same name.

Hasn't this been said about every new edition of every game that's ever been released?

[Yaga_Nub]

Hasn't this been said about every new edition of every game that's ever been released?

You think that argument will stop this? ;)

[MysticTheurge]

You think that argument will stop this? ;)

"All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again."

[Gornin]

Hasn't this been said about every new edition of every game that's ever been released?
No

[MysticTheurge]

No

Ok, well yeah. They don't say it has the same name as D&D unless it's a new edition of D&D.

[Yaga_Nub]

"All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again."

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

[Gornin]

Ok, well yeah. They don't say it has the same name as D&D unless it's a new edition of D&D.

If you make a new product that has no relation to an old product and then put the DnD logo on it doesn't mean it is DnD.

I already know you and I disagree about 4th ed.I hope you enjoy their new product, but they have lost a customer here, and I know many more who will not move on. I hope they gain enough new customers to offset the many of us who are not going to continue to support their products, because I don't wish them ill at all, but I am extremely disappointed. I was extremely happy with 3/3.5 and thought they did an excellent job with DnD.

I expect different things from a MMO and a RPG. The new rules feel like I am playing "Gauntlet".

Personally, the new game would be fine if they didn't call it DnD, and it is a tragedy that they did so.

And yes, I have played the new game and read the PHB and DMG, so this is an informed opinion.

[Borror0]

And yes, I have played the new game and read the PHB and DMG, so this is an informed opinion.

Curious, what do you dislike so much about it?

[MysticTheurge]

I already know you and I disagree about 4th ed.I hope you enjoy their new product, but they have lost a customer here, and I know many more who will not move on.

And my only point is that that happens every time someone changes something that people feel strongly about.

There are inevitably going to be some people who don't like what's changed.

[Gol]

Hasn't this been said about every new edition of every game that's ever been released?
Perhaps, but if you change every basic system of a game like is being done with 4th... is it really even the same game any more? SWG anyone?

[MysticTheurge]

Perhaps, but if you change every basic system of a game like is being done with 4th... is it really even the same game any more? SWG anyone?

Third edition was a change to every basic system of D&D. So if you really cared about that you wouldn't be complaining now cause you'd have jumped ship and stuck with Second.

[BrotherAsmodi]

get over it, Multi-classing the way we do in DDO is a rules rape.

[Borror0]

Perhaps, but if you change every basic system of a game like is being done with 4th... is it really even the same game any more? SWG anyone?

They'd change everything in DDO, it'd be a disaster. But they can do whatever with D&D, you can still play 3.5, or 3.0, or 2.0... well you get the point. Depending on how they implement it, there are things they will be able to bring from 4th Edition. However, they've said it already, they'll stay from anything that will cause a drastic change to the way a class behaves. They won't go into 4th Edition, but rather will be somewhere between 3.5 and 4th Edition. So, we'll get the better of both (hopefuly).:)

They can't change multiclassing, for the simple fact that... well... there are too many multiclassed builds already.

[Gornin]

And my only point is that that happens every time someone changes something that people feel strongly about.

There are inevitably going to be some people who don't like what's changed.

Oh, I agree and understand that, but I honestly never heard any negativity for 2.0 and 3.0. I did hear some griping about 3.5 due to it being so soon after 3.0 and the cost of updating to the less errata filled 3.5, but it was miniscule compared to the hue and cry this time around. Or maybe I just missed it all.

[Gornin]

Curious, what do you dislike so much about it?

The easy answer is that is bears no relation to DnD like every other previous incarnation did.

The long answer is that the classes are bland. The roles are poorly defined and many abilities are given to classes that don't fit the roles. Everyone has the same BAB.

Fighters should not be able to cast ritual magic. Fighters now have magical abilities that are called "Martial powers" that they can use only once a day. I should be able to use many of them as often as I can since they aren't really powers, but tactical manouvres.

Wizards were nerfed to unrecognizability and they require attack rolls for spells. They can't cast a teleport in combat. That is now a ritual spell, along with many other utility spells. The wizard is a fighter with spells instead of a sword. Vancian magic system eliminated. You can't memorized a daily or encounter spell multiple times. If you change a daily or encounter spell, you lose it from you spell book.

Why play a cleric when everyone has both personal and group healing "powers".

I can go on, but I don't want to crit any one with a wall of text.

I am sorry, but the new game is like an MMO on paper, and not what I expect from an RPG or DnD. I also feel they dumbed down the game alot.

That is my opinion, but I hope others who wanted the changes get what they wanted and enjoy. I am truly saddened by what I feel is the end of an era, but hold no animosity for those who will enjoy the new game.

[Aspenor]

The easy answer is that is bears no relation to DnD like every other previous incarnation did.

The long answer is that the classes are bland. The roles are poorly defined and many abilities are given to classes that don't fit the roles. Everyone has the same BAB.

Fighters should not be able to cast ritual magic. Fighters now have magical abilities that are called "Martial powers" that they can use only once a day. I should be able to use many of them as often as I can since they aren't really powers, but tactical manouvres.

Wizards were nerfed to unrecognizability and they require attack rolls for spells. They can't cast a teleport in combat. That is now a ritual spell, along with many other utility spells. The wizard is a fighter with spells instead of a sword. Vancian magic system eliminated. You can't memorized a daily or encounter spell multiple times. If you change a daily or encounter spell, you lose it from you spell book.

Why play a cleric when everyone has both personal and group healing "powers".

I can go on, but I don't want to crit any one with a wall of text.

I am sorry, but the new game is like an MMO on paper, and not what I expect from an RPG or DnD. I also feel they dumbed down the game alot.

That is my opinion, but I hope others who wanted the changes get what they wanted and enjoy. I am truly saddened by what I feel is the end of an era, but hold no animosity for those who will enjoy the new game.
These are my gripes as well.

I will not be buying 4th Ed. books, nor implementing it in my sessions. I will stick with 3.5.

To be perfectly honest I feel that the release of 4th edition is a money-making gimmick. New editions mean more sold books means more money.

They can "fix" 4.0 with a 4.5, and make all that money all over again after breaking their own game.

[sigtrent]

I like multiclassing too much. For those that are wondering, multiclassing as we know it is completely gone from the 4th edition rules. Almost all attack spells require attack rolls, and all instant death spells are completely gone.

Even if they wanted to adopt things from 4th edition the work required vs reward would be astronomical. I'm sure some flavor and features may slip over to DDO (indeed many things from 4th ed already have) but chances of core 4E rules changes coming to DDO are realy realy realy slim. And indeed in many interviews they have said that themselves.

Also, there is multi classing, bit it indeed is not what we are used to and is much more limited...

(characters can take a feat that gives access to certain class abbilities from another base class, at level 10 instead of choosing a prestige class option (called a paragon path) they can choose to multi class and pick between powers in the two classes as they advance.)

[Gornin]

Third edition was a change to every basic system of D&D. So if you really cared about that you wouldn't be complaining now cause you'd have jumped ship and stuck with Second.

I disagree. Personally, 3/3.5 was the logical next step and was totally recognizable as being DnD. It was just so much better mechanically without losing its heart.

[Aspenor]

To be perfectly honest I feel that the release of 4th edition is a money-making gimmick. New editions mean more sold books means more money.

They can "fix" 4.0 with a 4.5, and make all that money all over again after breaking their own game.

Reposted at the top of this page for sake of discussion.

[Gol]

I disagree. Personally, 3/3.5 was the logical next step and was totally recognizable as being DnD. It was just so much better mechanically without losing its heart.
Amen.

[In_Like_Flynn]

I'd like to see a version of DDO with 4th Edition rules.

[sigtrent]

Oh, I agree and understand that, but I honestly never heard any negativity for 2.0 and 3.0. I did hear some griping about 3.5 due to it being so soon after 3.0 and the cost of updating to the less errata filled 3.5, but it was miniscule compared to the hue and cry this time around. Or maybe I just missed it all.

I think you missed it all :o

Being a vet of all the editions I can tell you I've met folks who still play 1st edition and folks who still play 2nd edition and folks planning to keep playing 3rd edition and they all have their axes to grind about what they like or don't like about any given version.

But basicaly those folks are the minority and most eventualy embrace the new edition once all their other D&D buddies decide to move on or they playt he new version in a video game and decide they like it after all.

Personaly, the rules don't really matter in terms of the Role Playing side of D&D. Grognab the warrior is Grognab the warrior no matter what mechanics determine if he hits or how much damage he does. He still hates elves and he still feats spiders and he still has a weakness for dwarven women.

I like having new rules every few years to play around with. They usualy come up wtih pretty nice improvemetns that make the game easy to teach and fun to play. I'm a rules lawer of sorts so I like having new rules to learn and new combinations to discover. Losing loose multi classing is disapointing but there are lots of ways to cope with that and the power system does make for somewhat more dynamic differences in melee characters than we had before.

Of course I'm not a great WOTC customer. I generaly just buy about 10 books per edition of D&D and rarely buy any modules. I get the core books and a few splat books or monster tomes and mostly just because a player wants to use some class in one of them or I like the pictures of the monsters. This keeps me from the "oh god, what do I do with my massive X edition library?" which I can understand is a scarry and less than exciting proposition.

BTW: If you are a big 3.5 fan, Paizo (former makers of dungeon and dragon magazines) are putting out their own version of 3.5 they have updated and re-tooled a bit as a continuation of 3.5. It looks good and the beta rules are free.

Me, I'll go for 4E as soon as my gaming friends are ready to play it. I quite like a large number of the rules changes and can handle a few disapointments (like multiclassing) which I could always come up wtih a house rule for. for instance... it would be a piece of cake to just let people pick any class at any level and take new powers from the class they picked at that level. (all classes use the same level chart, they just get access to different "powers" whcih are spells or special combat maneuvers)

[Yaga_Nub]

I disagree. Personally, 3/3.5 was the logical next step and was totally recognizable as being DnD. It was just so much better mechanically without losing its heart.


Amen.

1.0 was the next logical step. Everything after that was just made for people that can't think and have to have things spelled out for them or for wannabe lawyers that need a book to point at and say "See I'm right!"

[Kistilan]

1.0 was the next logical step. Everything after that was just made for people that can't think and have to have things spelled out for them or for wannabe lawyers that need a book to point at and say "See I'm right!"

No, the next step was Role Master, but that's 1st Edition on Steroids and BAWLS at the same time. I heard about the math required to do a "called shot" in a "1-in-a-million" situation. It was beautiful.

Similar system, Gamma World (TSR, kudos) had a phase shift scale similar to what I was told Role Master used. I didn't understand it initially either, but I was like, 9. I understand it now.... barely.

[GramercyRiff]

The easy answer is that is bears no relation to DnD like every other previous incarnation did.

The long answer is that the classes are bland. The roles are poorly defined and many abilities are given to classes that don't fit the roles. Everyone has the same BAB.

The roles are better defined in 4E than in 3E. I'm not sure where you get this opinion. I do admit that the melee classes didn't give me the same wonder I got from the Crusader, Warblade, and Swordsage from ToB. They're still a lot fun to play though (they just fall short of the Crusader, Warblade, and Swordsage for me, the best melee classes WotC has produced).



Fighters should not be able to cast ritual magic. Fighters now have magical abilities that are called "Martial powers" that they can use only once a day. I should be able to use many of them as often as I can since they aren't really powers, but tactical manouvres.

Fighters (and all the other classes) get at will and encounter powers as well that they can use more than one time a day. As for ritual magic, it looks like you need a scroll and/or book of rituals to cast a ritual. Along with the book/scroll, it seems the ritual itself provides the magic. This makes sense actually.



Wizards were nerfed to unrecognizability and they require attack rolls for spells. They can't cast a teleport in combat. That is now a ritual spell, along with many other utility spells. The wizard is a fighter with spells instead of a sword. Vancian magic system eliminated. You can't memorized a daily or encounter spell multiple times. If you change a daily or encounter spell, you lose it from you spell book.

Wizards were part of the problem in 3E. So were Clerics and Druids. Yes both Wizards and Clerics were toned down quite a bit, but this was kinda necessary as they and the druid dominated high level of play. Looking at the big picture, this is a good thing.



Why play a cleric when everyone has both personal and group healing "powers".

The cleric still makes everyone in the party more efficient with their healing as well as providing many other options. Clerics are no longer a must have character for inexperienced players. New players no longer have to feel "compelled" to play a class they don't want to play.



I can go on, but I don't want to crit any one with a wall of text.

I am sorry, but the new game is like an MMO on paper, and not what I expect from an RPG or DnD. I also feel they dumbed down the game alot.

That is my opinion, but I hope others who wanted the changes get what they wanted and enjoy. I am truly saddened by what I feel is the end of an era, but hold no animosity for those who will enjoy the new game.

Here's where we agree...kinda. Yes, 4E is a bit too much like a video game. The video game industry makes an insane amount of money each year though. Why wouldn't Wizards try to make more money emulating such an industry? I agree that it's an end of an era. All things come to an end at some point. Why not start anew though? Changing your perception of 4E might open up its positive aspects for you. Then again maybe not. I readily admit that 3.5, with proper adjudication from the DM, is still and will remain a great game.

Finally, I agree 100% with your disdain for them nuking Forgotten Realms. Then again, I understand why they did it.

[Yaga_Nub]

No, the next step was Role Master, but that's 1st Edition on Steroids and BAWLS at the same time. I heard about the math required to do a "called shot" in a "1-in-a-million" situation. It was beautiful.

Similar system, Gamma World (TSR, kudos) had a phase shift scale similar to what I was told Role Master used. I didn't understand it initially either, but I was like, 9. I understand it now.... barely.

Gamma World was the bomb, Yo!

[Vorn]

Gamma World was the bomb, Yo!

Ever try Metamorphasis Alpha? Gamma World lost in space! I still have the books.:p

[MysticTheurge]

Oh, I agree and understand that, but I honestly never heard any negativity for 2.0 and 3.0.

Wow, I must just've been in the wrong places at the wrong times.


Reposted at the top of this page for sake of discussion.

We wouldn't want anyone to miss what Aspenor said. ;) :p


Finally, I agree 100% with your disdain for them nuking Forgotten Realms. Then again, I understand why they did it.

I'm absolutely with GR here. I can understand being mad about the massive overhaul of FR, but I can also understand why WotC did it.

And lastly, my opinions on 4E are really quite similar to Keith Baker's (http://gloomforge.livejournal.com/9954.html). I like it. I like what's new. I even like that it's a bit more like a video game. But I also like 3.5 and I'm really not going to take time to try to convince you that one is better than the other, because different people are going to like each of them.

But for me, a lot of the things you (Gornin) list as problems with 4E are things I consider to be improvements.

[Gornin]

No, the next step was Role Master, but that's 1st Edition on Steroids and BAWLS at the same time. I heard about the math required to do a "called shot" in a "1-in-a-million" situation. It was beautiful.

Similar system, Gamma World (TSR, kudos) had a phase shift scale similar to what I was told Role Master used. I didn't understand it initially either, but I was like, 9. I understand it now.... barely.

Role/Space master are both alot of fun and I play and GM for the I.C.E. systems. It is mostly the math geeks that play and don't mind the all the charts and slow combat because of the graduated scale and the pretty awesome critical effects that weren't just for combat, but for every skill listed in the system.

[Gornin]

1.0 was the next logical step. Everything after that was just made for people that can't think and have to have things spelled out for them or for wannabe lawyers that need a book to point at and say "See I'm right!"

There is a difference between dumbing down and streamlining or being more efficient or adding in new information so that it fits into the system.

[Twerpp]

A 4th edition MMO would merit its own, brand new MMO. DDO has enough to keep up with at the moment...and already is far enough off the mark on 3.5 (or any other edition) for this to even be relevant. I've always accepted the artistic license/house rules videogame versions of D&D, whichever edition they end up being closest to doesn't really matter as long as I'm having fun.

[Gornin]

The roles are better defined in 4E than in 3E. I'm not sure where you get this opinion. I do admit that the melee classes didn't give me the same wonder I got from the Crusader, Warblade, and Swordsage from ToB. They're still a lot fun to play though (they just fall short of the Crusader, Warblade, and Swordsage for me, the best melee classes WotC has produced).

By roles if you mean controller, striker etc. - maybe I could agree with you even though they classified the wizard wrong- he is a blaster not a controller. The classes are very generic now with very little to distinguish them.

Fighters (and all the other classes) get at will and encounter powers as well that they can use more than one time a day. As for ritual magic, it looks like you need a scroll and/or book of rituals to cast a ritual. Along with the book/scroll, it seems the ritual itself provides the magic. This makes sense actually.

So why is the master melee tactician gettin magical powers and the ability to cast ritual magic? This is a prime example of less class definition.

Wizards were part of the problem in 3E. So were Clerics and Druids. Yes both Wizards and Clerics were toned down quite a bit, but this was kinda necessary as they and the druid dominated high level of play. Looking at the big picture, this is a good thing.

No, the problem was poor DMing.

The cleric still makes everyone in the party more efficient with their healing as well as providing many other options. Clerics are no longer a must have character for inexperienced players. New players no longer have to feel "compelled" to play a class they don't want to play.

I never had this situation.

Here's where we agree...kinda. Yes, 4E is a bit too much like a video game. The video game industry makes an insane amount of money each year though. Why wouldn't Wizards try to make more money emulating such an industry? I agree that it's an end of an era. All things come to an end at some point. Why not start anew though? Changing your perception of 4E might open up its positive aspects for you. Then again maybe not. I readily admit that 3.5, with proper adjudication from the DM, is still and will remain a great game.

It is called "jumping the shark". I have tried it. I was excited when I heard about it because of the wonderful job they did with 3/3.5. It feels and plays nothing like DnD and shares nothing but a name and dice to me and many in my groups.

Finally, I agree 100% with your disdain for them nuking Forgotten Realms. Then again, I understand why they did it.

They didn't have to do anything. They are already resurrecting many of the old settings that had much smaller loyal following. They could have changed much about them to make them popular again.

They nuked FR because of all the whiners. We weren't complaining about their preferred setting, but WoTC listened to them and screwed over our preferred setting. That is wrong and likely to cost them. And the way they did it with a RETCON all the way back into prehistory and ignoring current and correct lore, and the poorly written and impossible plot lines. It honestly made my guts twist into knots as I read each more improbable scenario after the next.

[Gornin]

Wow, I must just've been in the wrong places at the wrong times.

Not trying to toot my own horn, but I have been playing since '79 and was very involved in RPGA and other organized play groups and I can honestly say only 1-2% had a problem with the edition changes. My only problem with 2.0 and 3/3.5 was how they totally screwed up Bards

We wouldn't want anyone to miss what Aspenor said. ;) :p



I'm absolutely with GR here. I can understand being mad about the massive overhaul of FR, but I can also understand why WotC did it.

I understand what they said, but they are so wrong to change things for the whiners.

And lastly, my opinions on 4E are really quite similar to Keith Baker's (http://gloomforge.livejournal.com/9954.html). I like it. I like what's new. I even like that it's a bit more like a video game. But I also like 3.5 and I'm really not going to take time to try to convince you that one is better than the other, because different people are going to like each of them.

But for me, a lot of the things you (Gornin) list as problems with 4E are things I consider to be improvements.

Hey, thats cool. I honestly hope you get alot of enjoyment out of the new game. And thanks for the understanding about what they did to FR.

[Gornin]

Thanks for keeping this conversation from going down in flames every one.

I am honestly not trying to sway anyones' opinion. I am merely expressing my dislike for how the new system will be, and as I said before, if you like the new game, I hope it brings you and your friends much enjoyment.

If this game switched to 4E or the made a new game based on 4E, I would probably not play it.

[sigtrent]

Actualy only clerics and wizards get to use ritual magic for "free".

You need the ritual caster feat, and that requires you to have trained religion or arcana. None of these are available to a fighter via their class. Thus fighters can not cast rituals except by using scrolls which they must buy or find (aka under the DMs control).

BTW: For those not clued into all this, rituals are non combat spells like divination or opening locks etc... basicaly utility magic of various kinds and they usualy have various material costs and special components and such. They generaly take minutes or hours to cast rather than actions.

It's ok to not like a new system but if you are going to pick something out about it, at least take the time to actualy read it or explain it.

[JayDubya]

I haven't read any of the actual rules. The impression I've gotten is definitely that they made combat more incremental and "Diablo-like". I.e. no massive increase in power for any class at any level - just a gradual improvement over time.

I understand why they do this - game balance is very important, and if the high-level melee types don't feel like they are contributing, or as powerful as the high-level casters, then the game isn't probably as satisfying in the long term.

Having said that, I'm fairly fond of DDO as it is. I like crazy multiclasses, it adds a certain, as the french say, "I don't know what."

[GramercyRiff]

By roles if you mean controller, striker etc. - maybe I could agree with you even though they classified the wizard wrong- he is a blaster not a controller. The classes are very generic now with very little to distinguish them.

The wizard does have a lot of blasting, but his spell arsenal still contains many golden controlling gems. Defenders defend far better than any 3.5 class save the Crusader.


So why is the master melee tactician gettin magical powers and the ability to cast ritual magic? This is a prime example of less class definition.

See sigtrent's post above. I wasn't sure that fighters (or any other martial class) get full access to rituals (I was pretty sure they didn't but couldn't argure the point as I haven't seen the full rules for rituals), as when I played we didn't have access to the rules for rituals. It seems they don't get easy access to rituals according to sigtrent. Now if martial classes get access to martial rituals...what's wrong with that?


No, the problem was poor DMing.

Well that's one way to look at it, but it's shortsighted. It is an indisputable fact that wizards, clerics, and druids are inherently more powerful than the melee based classes. Of course DM fiat rules all, and this disparity between classes can be remedied. But with the rules as they are, casting classes are head and shoulders superior to melee. Perhaps you or I or the people we game with can overcome the disparity between classes. Not all players are that savvy. If the classes were more balanced, a DM (of any skill) could concentrate on things that matter, like creating interesting encounters that feel alive. Blaming it on poor DM'ing is just a way to ignore the problem.


I never had this situation.

Which situation? That 4E clerics make everyone's healing more efficient? Did you have a cleric in your party? Or the situation that new players feel compelled to play a cleric? Any player without a very good understanding of 3.5 thinks they need a cleric in the party. Experienced players know this is not the case. Finally, that you never had this situation (either of them) is irrelevant because many have and did.


It is called "jumping the shark". I have tried it. I was excited when I heard about it because of the wonderful job they did with 3/3.5. It feels and plays nothing like DnD and shares nothing but a name and dice to me and many in my groups.

If anything 3.5 jumped the shark when it released PrC's like the Incantatrix or Planar Shepherd and other seriously abusive mechanics. At any rate, the good news is that you can still play 3.5. I'm not sure you gave 4E enough of a chance though.


They didn't have to do anything. They are already resurrecting many of the old settings that had much smaller loyal following. They could have changed much about them to make them popular again.

They nuked FR because of all the whiners. We weren't complaining about their preferred setting, but WoTC listened to them and screwed over our preferred setting. That is wrong and likely to cost them. And the way they did it with a RETCON all the way back into prehistory and ignoring current and correct lore, and the poorly written and impossible plot lines. It honestly made my guts twist into knots as I read each more improbable scenario after the next.

It also had a lot to do with the drastic change to the way magic works. Magic is an integral part of Faerun, moreso than any other world. The spellplague is there to try to explain how and why magic works so differently. You're still free to play in any FR era you like, just as you're free to play any edition you like. There's tons of 3.5 content out there after all.

[Kalanth]

I like 4th edition, but I would rather see a new game then get an overhaul of DDO. So, in that sense, I agree with the OP in the request to ignore 4th edition (unless DDO 2 is in the works, then be my guest.)

[GlassCannon]

I like multiclassing too much.


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee307/sarin_elf/1207382155408.jpg



Almost all attack spells require attack rolls, and all instant death spells are completely gone.

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee307/sarin_elf/VERYNO.jpg

[fatherpirate]

I like multiclassing too much. For those that are wondering, multiclassing as we know it is completely gone from the 4th edition rules. Almost all attack spells require attack rolls, and all instant death spells are completely gone.

I have to agree for a different reason.

Am tired of relearning the game every time wizards of the west coast want a new money bomb.

3.5....it works, don't fix it

[Borror0]

3.5....it works, don't fix it

While it does work, it's not perfect.

[Aspenor]

While it does work, it's not perfect.

That's entirely subjective.

[Kalanth]

That's entirely subjective.

True, but there are some of the basic core rules that are clunky. Grapple, Bull Rush, Overrun, and so on. Tactics rarely used in the games I have DMed and Played because people tired of flipping to page 172 and reading it step by step. Turn undead, for example, is dramatically overhauled in 4e and those that complain of it never working past lvl 10 would be pleasently pleased with it now as it works every time as long as you hit their save.

Just as 3rd ed was nothing like 2nd, 4e will be nothing like 3 / 3.5. The game is faster, more computer friendly, and has a touch of laugh at itself humor in there. I think this time around WoTC decided not to take themselves so seriously as evidenced by powers like Hack 'n Slash. The game will not be liked by the older generation and that is evident so far. I have played D&D since about 1986 and have worked with every edition except Chainmail and I can say that I honestly enjoy 4e. Will it replace 3.5 in my heart as the best edition? Not likely as they have butchered my favorite part of the game (multiclassing) but that does not mean it is not fun to play for me.

And that is the key point to the edition argument. It is for you or it is not for you. The advantage to the game is you can play whatever edition you want and you will inevitably find people that want that same thing.

[Borror0]

That's entirely subjective.

Ever played an epic Truenamer? WotC never test any past level 5.

Honestly, I'm not a total of 4th Edition, mostly for the loss of muticlassing but there are some changes to the cire rules that are interesting. Mostly, the one about AC and how it scales (10 base + half level). Overall, the rule seem to scale better. They realised that a few of their feats weren't too good for their game's balance (anything that boosted AC is gone to my knowledge). And then, you can sneak and land criticals on undeads and contrsucts, that's a great change too.

4th Edition isn't perfect, but neither is 3.5.

[Gornin]

The wizard does have a lot of blasting, but his spell arsenal still contains many golden controlling gems. Defenders defend far better than any 3.5 class save the Crusader.

No, all the higher level control/utility spells have been drastically changed and turned into rituals or now cause direct damage, not control the battle field.

See sigtrent's post above. I wasn't sure that fighters (or any other martial class) get full access to rituals (I was pretty sure they didn't but couldn't argure the point as I haven't seen the full rules for rituals), as when I played we didn't have access to the rules for rituals. It seems they don't get easy access to rituals according to sigtrent. Now if martial classes get access to martial rituals...what's wrong with that?

Why should a martial class be able to use arcane scrolls without multiclassing? Just putting a few skill points (1) into arcane knowledge does not a magic user make. I did explain it some what in different postsand sigtrent did put it all together, but you don't have to "multiclass" to do it and getting to level 10 is fast.



Well that's one way to look at it, but it's shortsighted. It is an indisputable fact that wizards, clerics, and druids are inherently more powerful than the melee based classes. Of course DM fiat rules all, and this disparity between classes can be remedied. But with the rules as they are, casting classes are head and shoulders superior to melee. Perhaps you or I or the people we game with can overcome the disparity between classes. Not all players are that savvy. If the classes were more balanced, a DM (of any skill) could concentrate on things that matter, like creating interesting encounters that feel alive. Blaming it on poor DM'ing is just a way to ignore the problem.

Sorry, I don't see being a good DM as ignoring the problem. I see it as knowing that there is a very high potential for that to happen, but there are game and role playing mechanics to keep it in line, along with making challenging, level appropriate and balanced encounters. Unfortunately there are many who meta game, and many DMs won't put the kabosh on that nonsense. Its an RPG, not an arms race. While I agree in general that the spell casters have more immediate power, they were limited in amount and types of spells available and needed to keep a nice balance of spells prepared to hopefully cover many different situations. It doesn't matter how powerful you are if you didn't memorize the right spell, don't have that spell available to you, or ran out because you didn't allow the others in your party to handle things that they can and reserve your spells for more critical situations.



Which situation? That 4E clerics make everyone's healing more efficient? Did you have a cleric in your party? Or the situation that new players feel compelled to play a cleric? Any player without a very good understanding of 3.5 thinks they need a cleric in the party. Experienced players know this is not the case. Finally, that you never had this situation (either of them) is irrelevant because many have and did.

Well, my extensive experience is not irrelevent, and I have run several campaigns without a cleric in the party, or a druid. Again, that is poor Dming if a player feels it is necessary to play one class if they would prefer to play another. I happen to like playing clerics, not for the power, but the utility and the roleplaying aspect, but I guess I am unusual and have been blessed over the years to have excellent players. I have had some that I consider to be not good players, but they either learned or moved on to other stuff that was more their style, with no hard feelings. And I run a epic level campaign with one of my groups.

If anything 3.5 jumped the shark when it released PrC's like the Incantatrix or Planar Shepherd and other seriously abusive mechanics. At any rate, the good news is that you can still play 3.5. I'm not sure you gave 4E enough of a chance though.

I can semi agree with you here on some of the prestige classes. Luckily, many of these did not fit my campaigns, so they never became a problem for me, and my players do not have the desire to overtly metagame. I have been playtesting 4E for a while and solidly for the past month. I have given it more than enough chance.


It also had a lot to do with the drastic change to the way magic works. Magic is an integral part of Faerun, moreso than any other world. The spellplague is there to try to explain how and why magic works so differently. You're still free to play in any FR era you like, just as you're free to play any edition you like. There's tons of 3.5 content out there after all.

Oh, I will still continue to use pre spell plague FR and my own home setting to DM using 3.5. They did not have to do any of what they did. A very simple overhaul could have been this. Ao came to Mystra and said to her that he wanted her to change the structure of the weave to allow easier access by all. Done! No killing of over half the dieties, no spell plague, no stupid love matches between the gods, no time line advancement of 100 years. It was all completely unnecessary. Every thing that was done was in direct reaction to those who don't play in FR, but complain about it. If they don't like it and don't play in it, why should they be allowed to influence over those who use it and enjoy it the way it was? They shouldn't and that is my biggest problem.

That all being said, I am done, because all I wanted to do was answer the question of why I don't like 4E. I have done so and I am not going to defend my opinion any more. Thanks again for being civil though.

[Yaga_Nub]

While it does work, it's not perfect.

Neither is 4.0


DnD (boxed set with the fighter/magic-user/elf/etc.) was perfect.

Long live perfection!

[Borror0]

4th Edition isn't perfect, but neither is 3.5.

Neither is 4.0

:rolleyes:

[sigtrent]

I have to agree for a different reason.
Am tired of relearning the game every time wizards of the west coast want a new money bomb.


Ya... because staying employed and making a living creating role playing game is totaly greedy and corrupt.
Games should bever change or be re-worked to try and make them better either.

[Yaga_Nub]

Ya... because staying employed and making a living creating role playing game is totaly greedy and corrupt.
Games should bever change or be re-worked to try and make them better either.

Better is very subjective.

Look at all the rules they make for football; do they make them better? I don't think so. I'd rather see a quarterback get killed and put out of the league by an awesome hit than to see a penalty for roughing the passer. I'm sure the owner that pay those QBs millions and have them insured don't want to see that so they had rules made to protect their investment. Those rules definitely don't make the game better though for me.

[GramercyRiff]

Better is very subjective.

Look at all the rules they make for football; do they make them better? I don't think so. I'd rather see a quarterback get killed and put out of the league by an awesome hit than to see a penalty for roughing the passer. I'm sure the owner that pay those QBs millions and have them insured don't want to see that so they had rules made to protect their investment. Those rules definitely don't make the game better though for me.

Way off topic, but there's also the QB's life we're talking about here. QB's are extremely vulnerable in the pocket when looking downfield. Still, roughing the passer is a BS call about 75% of the time so I understand where you're comin from. It still has to exist to protect the investment of millions, but also to protect the QB's livelyhood. The flaw isn't the rule itself, but the subjectiveness of it, much like pass interference. Watch ten different games in a day and you'll see different results with the roughing the passer rule.

In the end though, yes, better is subjective. The point I'm making is that you gotta examine things from different angles to get the best perspective possible.

Keep DDO 3.5. It'll be too much trouble to convert and won't be worth it.

[sigtrent]

Better is very subjective.


Of course it is subjective, but if you were a game designer it is what you would always be striving for. You want to fault someone for trying to make a living and trying to improve the quality of thier work?

Saying you like the old version better is one thing, but calling someone greedy because they are pursuing both thier profession and thier passion is beyond cynical.

[Yaga_Nub]

Of course it is subjective, but if you were a game designer it is what you would always be striving for. You want to fault someone for trying to make a living and trying to improve the quality of thier work?

Saying you like the old version better is one thing, but calling someone greedy because they are pursuing both thier profession and thier passion is beyond cynical.

Well there is the whole 3.0/3.5 fiasco you know. That is probably one reason some people feel it's a pure money grab.

[MysticTheurge]

Way off topic, but there's also the QB's life we're talking about here. QB's are extremely vulnerable in the pocket when looking downfield. Still, roughing the passer is a BS call about 75% of the time so I understand where you're comin from. It still has to exist to protect the investment of millions, but also to protect the QB's livelyhood. The flaw isn't the rule itself, but the subjectiveness of it, much like pass interference. Watch ten different games in a day and you'll see different results with the roughing the passer rule.

So basically, you're saying that the problem isn't with the rules, it's with the DM(s).

[Vizzini]

It's not gone fyi, read up about Paragon paths etc..


I like multiclassing too much. For those that are wondering, multiclassing as we know it is completely gone from the 4th edition rules. Almost all attack spells require attack rolls, and all instant death spells are completely gone.

[Yaga_Nub]

So basically, you're saying that the problem isn't with the rules, it's with the DM(s).

Very nice redirect MT.

That is my whole issue with updates to DnD. These are guidelines not RULES. So we don't need updates to guidelines. Now if you wanted to see what others are doing subscribe in the pre-internet days, you subscribed to Dragon or other gaming magazines. You could take what others were doing and add them into your campaigns if you wanted to. Nowadays you can subscribe to online mags, forums, news lists, etc. to get new ideas.

If you want to add new weapons, sit down and think them through and make sure they fit into your campaign. You don't need a new book to tell you what the stats would be.

If you want to add a new country into your campaign, CREATE IT! Don't get told what to put into your campaign.

As I stated before, newer versions of DnD are for those people who have little to no imagination (or they don't want to take time to make the campaign theirs).

[MysticTheurge]

As I stated before, newer versions of DnD are for those people who have little to no imagination (or they don't want to take time to make the campaign theirs).

That's me right there.

I don't want to take the time to debate with people about how something should work. I don't want to take the time to try to mend rifts created unnecessarily because someone was unhappy with someone else's decision. I want rules that work well, are fun for my whole group and don't require a wheelbarrowful of "I'm the DM and I said so."

Because really, I have way better things to do with my time.

[DelScorcho]

I like multiclassing too much. For those that are wondering, multiclassing as we know it is completely gone from the 4th edition rules. Almost all attack spells require attack rolls, and all instant death spells are completely gone.

Under these rules, all my tanks would be gone. My casters are pure class, but they only throw instant death spells and haste. :D

[sigtrent]

Well there is the whole 3.0/3.5 fiasco you know. That is probably one reason some people feel it's a pure money grab.

It's always a money grab... they make D&D books for a living and core books are the best sellers. It isn't like they force you to buy them. 3.0 materials worked perfectly fine with 3.5 rules or adventures. The differences were mostly just in what class abbilities folks got at various levels to try and make some of the classes more attractive. There were also spell changes but those were primarily just attempts to balance things that werer common game problems.

Its almost like saying that detroit's new model cars are complete money grabs! Or the latest CPUs are pure money grabs etc... of course they are, thats what those people do for a living. If they don't keep making products they loose their jobs. Game designers need money to do crazy stuff like pay thier rent and feed their families.

[sigtrent]

As I stated before, newer versions of DnD are for those people who have little to no imagination (or they don't want to take time to make the campaign theirs).

I suppose it depends on what you buy the materials for.

I mostly just buy rules books. While I enjoy coming up wtih rules systems, they are a ton of work, especialy making all the spells and items. Id rather have most of that laid out and simply adjust or add to it unless I'm getting paid or working wtih lots of other folks contributing to the effort.

Flavor books I usualy don't buy. While I like good writing and ideas as much as the next guy, that stuff pretty well comes natural to me and is more fun than work to write for myself. I could care less what happens with forgotten realms or greyhawk as I never payed much attention to them. I like planescape a lot but its just plain wierd and something I'd never have imagined myself. But even then all I ever bought was the core setting book. (I also bought ebberon but that was because I participated in the design contest that produced it and was excited to see what ultimately won out)

I know a lot of other folks that could care less about the crunchy stuff and much perefer the flavor and world building books.

[eilar]

What are you people High

I got the books in the mail on Friday

The good things :
Look Great
Pictures are increadible
goes to lvl 30

The Bad things
The rules Suck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lets see
1. Everyone is ALOT more powerful
2. New monster type - minions - have 1 repeat 1 Hit point including OGRES!!!!
3. all monsters do a set amount of damage
4. All monsters of a type have EXACTLY the same hit points
5. To give an example of races - Dragonborn get a gbreat weapon at first lvl that they can use alot (and +4 and nonnegs to stats)
6. Stats go up fast +1 stat / 3-4 lvls plus +1 to ALL stats ever 10!!!

Looking at the game it looks like the developers tried to mix a super hero game with 7th sea
.
For Cinimatic 7th sea was WAY better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For superheroes Champions is way better

The only use I have for the books is to Scan the pictures to add to older versions of the monsters to show players.

Who was this intended for 13 year olds ???

Dm: You see an army of orcs - what does your 1st lvl chjaracter do?
Player: well, since i am by myself - I ATTACK
Dm: (Rolls dice) : you win gain 4342 xp and make 3rd lvl
Player: Yeah me!
Player: o yeah what treasure?
DM: you find 5 Astral diamonds
Player: only 5 :( not fair

This is what i see 4th being - and if you look you will see its not far from the truth!
A first lvl wizard with a burning hands spell can kill off alot of minions very quickly


Sad - can't wait to see what 5th edition is like maybe they will bring it back to sanity :(


EDIT: Obviously my opinion of 4th is 1 don't waste your money
2 developers please please stay with the current rules - I like this game and would like to continue playing it but with 4th edition changes i couldn't see me staying(not a threat just reality - and I know many others that would feel the same.

[Deriaz]

What are you people High

I got the books in the mail on Friday

The good things :
Look Great
Pictures are increadible
goes to lvl 30

Can agree with all of these.

The Bad things
The rules Suck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lets see
1. Everyone is ALOT more powerful But to that same extent, upon reaching higher levels in 3.5 or if you knew what you were doing with multiclassing, weren't you just as powerful? My friend spoke of a Rogue / Barbarian who, at level 4, sneak attacked for, like, 30 damage or something. . .

2. New monster type - minions - have 1 repeat 1 Hit point including OGRES!!!! I'm pretty sure minions are what they are -- minions. Imagine an evil overlord. When he send his minions to fight the heroes. . . Does he send 1? 2? 5? Noooo. . . He sends a BUNCH. Which are what they are, essentially, in my mind: Monster classes that, if used well, can make the players imagine they're overwhelmed, while providing an exciting combat encounter.

3. all monsters do a set amount of damage Which can easily be replaced with rolling if the DM sees fit. Just cause they have a set damage in the book doesn't mean you have to go with it, do you? (I don't honestly know. I've never DMed, so. . . >>)

4. All monsters of a type have EXACTLY the same hit points Again, this could be fluctuated a bit, maybe? Couldn't be that hard. Add 15 HP or something to one enemy, just make sure to equal it out in another.

5. To give an example of races - Dragonborn get a gbreat weapon at first lvl that they can use alot (and +4 and nonnegs to stats) I'm not sure how this is a bad thing. . .? They're a new race, with a unique racial feature once daily. . . Sure, it's +4 to stats with no negatives, but in the long run, when everyone's gonna be "ALOT more powerful". . . Doesn't seem too important to me. >>;;

6. Stats go up fast +1 stat / 3-4 lvls plus +1 to ALL stats ever 10!!! Again, not seeing how this is a bad thing. Scale the monsters accordingly, if it might be a problem?

Looking at the game it looks like the developers tried to mix a super hero game with 7th sea
.
For Cinimatic 7th sea was WAY better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For superheroes Champions is way better

Well, like I said above, I'm guessing Wizards wanted to make D&D more "cinematic" with the powers, the way combat works (From what little I know of both 3.5 and 4.0), etc. I like it, to be honest.

The only use I have for the books is to Scan the pictures to add to older versions of the monsters to show players.

Who was this intended for 13 year olds ???

Or people who just want to play D&D and have fun. From what I've seen. . . Lots less rules. Much easier to grab the books and dive into your own little world instead of having to go through book after book looking for each individual rule. I like that. If it's for 13 year olds, oh well -- I'll still enjoy it. As will people who are 50 years old, I'm guessing.

Dm: You see an army of orcs - what does your 1st lvl chjaracter do?
Player: well, since i am by myself - I ATTACK
Dm: (Rolls dice) : you win gain 4342 xp and make 3rd lvl
Player: Yeah me!
Player: o yeah what treasure?
DM: you find 5 Astral diamonds
Player: only 5 :( not fair

Nice exaggeration. There's tables and stuff, though, that show recommended EXP values for the party of monsters the player(s) should fight. . . I think it's 350 EXP for a group of 5 monsters pitted against 5 players? I don't know if you divide EXP among the party, but that's either 350 EXP each or 60 EXP each. . . Guessing it's 350. Either way, if that seems too fast. . . Again, can't you scale it?

This is what i see 4th being - and if you look you will see its not far from the truth! I'm not seeing it. >>


A first lvl wizard with a burning hands spell can kill off alot of minions very quickly Because, again, minions are meant to come in droves (I'm assuming), and are meant to make the fight seem more cinematic and detailed. . . My guess, at least. The thought of 5 players versus a horde of Orcs (Example: 50 or so.) just seems awesome in my mind.


Sad - can't wait to see what 5th edition is like maybe they will bring it back to sanity :( Seems sane to me. It's got rules and everything still.


EDIT: Obviously my opinion of 4th is 1 don't waste your money Unless you like D&D of course. In which case, feel free to buy it and have fun.
2 developers please please stay with the current rules - I like this game and would like to continue playing it but with 4th edition changes i couldn't see me staying(not a threat just reality - and I know many others that would feel the same. I can agree with ya there. I like DDO just the way it is. :) Doesn't have to conform to 4.0 if it doesn't want to. Sure, some minor things added would be cool -- but only if they really fit. (And plus, I can still dream for Dragonborn, possibly my new favorite race ever. ^^)

Thoughts in red. They're just my opinions, so. . . No offense meant. If offense is found, my apologies -- Didn't meant for it to come across that way, at all. (People call me blunt, so. . . Maybe it shows sometimes? :x?)

-D

[eilar]

no offense taken

In any game you can change the rules as you see fit - thats the power of the DM.

But some players complain every time you change something because " you arent following the rules" Technicallly you are because the DM can do anything but thats beside the point.

From what Ive read the game isnt simpler it is more complex in a lot of ways and ill reiderate alot more powerful. yes that is cinimatic i guess but in 7th sea (a cinimatic style game ) a minion is about 1/6th of a normal and they still had multiple hit points.
It worked players in this case faced humans and could do strange things like swinging from chandeleers, jumping on villians froma balcony etc and it works - here it seems that heros face dozens of foes and as long as they can swing /affect alot of targets they will destroy hundreds.

One other thing I saw was that Armor is either light (allows dex) or heavy (doesnt)
This means that players will either spend alot of points on dex (rogues/rangers/wizards) of none at all(fighter types) in 3.5 a fighter can have a good dex and a mithral breastplate and do well in 4.0 nope not allowed. :(
This bothered me a bit as i play alot of characters in the middle. - more roleplay but i want to be a viable character also

My opinion stands about not bohtering to pick it up but at a minimum i recommend people at least check out the rules BEFORE buying. - maybe 5th will be here sooner if 4th doesnt sell :)

[sigtrent]

The rules Suck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

I disagree but everyone is entitled to their opinion. I do think you are missing some of the finer points though.


1. Everyone is ALOT more powerful!.

Well, not exactly since it is relative. First level cahracters in 4E are stronger than 1st level 3E characters, but on the other hand level 20 characters in 4E are not as strong as level 20 characters in 3E. They really smoothed out the power curve so that first level characters are able to do a wide range of actions but high level characters don't achieve a kind of exponential growth rate. so while characters get stronger, its a nice smooth transition and the begining and end points arn't unmanagable. At least that is the theory of it.


2. New monster type - minions - have 1 repeat 1 Hit point including OGRES!!!!!

Its an idea used succesfully in other heroic games. minions are fodder and big bad guys arn't. They are there to be used in specific ways, not a s a "you encounter 3 minions" becasue it would be pointless. Minions are pawns in larger battles letting you throw out 30 ork warriors without bogging down the game by trying to keep track of them all. You hit them, they die, thus little or no bookeeping for big battles.


3. all monsters do a set amount of damage

That is simply not true! I've got the Mosnter Manual right in front of me and most mosnter attacks have variable damage. Not sure where you got this idea.


4. All monsters of a type have EXACTLY the same hit points

Most game masters use the standard MM hit points anyhow. If you want to add or remove HP from a monster, nothing is stopping you. Having to roll up monster HP for every encounter... pointless. The characters won't know exactly how much damage a monster has taken so its largely invisible to them anyhow. Why not save time. Thats the way I do it unless I have a "named" monster in which case it is probably tougher than its fellows.


5. To give an example of races - Dragonborn get a gbreat weapon at first lvl that they can use alot (and +4 and nonnegs to stats)

Its not unbalanced agaisnt other racial abbilities or powers of low level characters. Burning hands is essentialy a breath weapon after all. Whether it comes out of your mouth or your fingers isn't especialy important.


6. Stats go up fast +1 stat / 3-4 lvls plus +1 to ALL stats ever 10!!!

True, but this helps give characters a nicer progression of abbility. No stat bonuses puts too much emphasis on character creation and not enough on character development. More generous stat increases makes it much easier to change the direction of your character as it develops and helps differentiate high level from low level characters. Also if you look at the recomended starting statistics sets, they are generaly much lower than what a DDO character has. Its expected you don't start with multiple 18s but you may well end up with them after a number of levels.


Looking at the game it looks like the developers tried to mix a super hero game with 7th sea

D&D has pretty much always seemed like a bit of a super hero game to me anyhow... but everyone playes it somewhat differently.


Who was this intended for 13 year olds ???

Its been intended for 13 year olds for tthe past 30 years! Really. Adults too but making it attractive to kids is key to market success. How old were you when you started playing? I was about 10 myself. My wife was 11 when she first played.

[Uska]

I wouldnt worry about 4E it would take a major reworking to change this to that. I did notice though on power sources in the future that KI was one of them for monks so maybe they did have a bit of advanced notice.

[QuixoticDan]

I am sorry, but the new game is like an MMO on paper, and not what I expect from an RPG or DnD.

I agree with this statement. I have not playtested it. I have not read the books. I have only read reviews, and this is a 'snap judgement.' I am 'shooting from the hip' on this one, because a large variety of people with more experience than me have said the same thing. This is generally a bad way to make decisions.


These are my gripes as well.

I will not be buying 4th Ed. books, nor implementing it in my sessions. I will stick with 3.5.

To be perfectly honest I feel that the release of 4th edition is a money-making gimmick. New editions mean more sold books means more money.

They can "fix" 4.0 with a 4.5, and make all that money all over again after breaking their own game.

I agree with this statement. I'll also add that it's not inherently bad to release another edition as a moneymaking gimmick; any publisher should make money. It just bugs me they don't have any materials to help changing things from 3.5 to 4.0. Not faulting them; it just bugs me. It bugs me enough that I will only spend money on 4.0 if the only gaming group I can find will only play 4.0.


A 4th edition MMO would merit its own, brand new MMO. DDO has enough to keep up with at the moment...and already is far enough off the mark on 3.5 (or any other edition) for this to even be relevant. I've always accepted the artistic license/house rules videogame versions of D&D, whichever edition they end up being closest to doesn't really matter as long as I'm having fun.

As far as the actual meaning of the OP, as in 'don't add 4e to DDO', I remember reading they won't. It's all house rules here anyway; most of the house rules are there so you don't hit cap so quickly with casual play. The amount of time spent playing an MMO is generally greater than the amount spent playing PnP. The amount of time spent in combat in an MMO is a tiny fraction of the same combat in PnP. Most of the house rules here deal with that kind of difference, and with the limitations on bandwidth and programming that a human DM can overcome.


True, but there are some of the basic core rules that are clunky. Grapple, Bull Rush, Overrun, and so on. Tactics rarely used in the games I have DMed and Played because people tired of flipping to page 172 and reading it step by step. Turn undead, for example, is dramatically overhauled in 4e and those that complain of it never working past lvl 10 would be pleasently pleased with it now as it works every time as long as you hit their save.

...

And that is the key point to the edition argument. It is for you or it is not for you. The advantage to the game is you can play whatever edition you want and you will inevitably find people that want that same thing.

First paragraph, I'll answer by pointing out my favorite designer, Monte Cook, and his latest (last?) two 3.5 books...the Books of Experimental Might. Fixed pretty much everything 4e is trying to fix. Are they totally compatible with the rest of 3.5? Of course not, but it's possible to convert between them (they're collections of house rules). WotC has stated 'no conversion' between 3.5 and 4e. I get why not, the systems are drastically different.

Bolded text, the core of the issue. Like I said, if I gotta play 4e, I'll play 4e. If I don't, I'll play 3.5e. Or GURPS. Or the HERO system. Or True20. Or Paizo's Pathfinder. Or White Wolf's Storytelling system. I don't really play to manipulate the rules; I play to engage in recreation with like-minded people, and to contribute to while experiencing a dynamic storyline. Even to roleplay a little bit, at least. All of those things can be accomplished regardless of the underlying rules set.

As a final aside, I never buy WotC setting books. The reason it bugs me they won't release conversion help is because of all the amazing stuff White Wolf, Sword and Sorcery, Malhavoc Press, and other third party publishers have put out...but, I'm a pretty creative guy, if push comes to shove I'm sure it will work out. ;)

[EspyLacopa]

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
The more things change, the more things stay the same.

BTW: Actually playing it? (was at the game day) Still felt like D&D. Wanna know why? Because of the laughter. Shoved a hobgoblin into a trap using one of the rogue powers, and the hobgoblin fried. Woo!

The truely funny thing: One of the guys DMing said he ran a test encounter earlier with a few of his friends. 4 Kobolds vs 5 Lv1 Adventurers. TPK.

[Tin_Dragon]

Who was this intended for 13 year olds ???

.

Frankly, Yes it is.

D&D has always been a "thinking" persons game. But sadly the youth of today is, well, lazy (in general, dont all the parents jump me at once, I have 2 children of my own).

But without getting into a socio/geo/psych debate of todays youth, simply, they are into insta gratification, and over simplification (PS3, XBOX, all very simple for tweens to use) and those companies are making MILLIONS of parents money. Wizards of the Co st want some of the money too.

Monte Cook was a major developer of D&D 3rd ed. He stated THE DAY 3.5 was released that it was ORDERED by WotC to make specific drawbacks/mistakes/etc... to the game, so they COULD develop 3.5 right along side of it. And that is why he left WotC shortly after release of 3.0 to do U.A. setting of his own under the open 3.0 rules. (notice 3.5 NOT open rules set).

Any way, so other than Borrowing a few general ideas, I dont see how DDO could go to 4.0 and if it did, most of us are smart enough to realize the mistake and walk away.