4.0 is weaksauce

[Aspenor]

Since the DDO forums are dead and boring, I surfed over to the WotC site to do some 4.0 research.

The more I read about this "edition," the more I dislike it.

Please, please, PLEASE Turbine be very judicious when considering alterations to DDO gameplay based off the 4.0 ruleset. The magic system is IMO broken beyond all belief in 4.0. Character uniqueness is virtually shot, and all classes seem to be pigeonholed into classic MMO roles, rather than allowing for the player to choose how they want their character to function.

Still giving this one a big thumbs DOWN. I get that they wanted to streamline the ruleset for online gameplay, but the abomination they've come up with is nearly offensive to my roleplaying tastes.

[Grimdiegn]

I agree with ASP? :eek:

[Dexxaan]

If what you say is so.....class blending into one big Vanilla Mush..... I´m gonna form a new MMO and contact GURPS. :eek:

[Beherit_Baphomar]

I know nothing about 4.0 other than its version 4.0, but Asps post makes me hate it with a fiery passion....

[totmacher]

****, I'd love to form up a pnp group to get this going... if even to try it out...

guess I could, have to be people from DDO

[Andoir]

I wanted to like 4.0 really bad. After pouring through all 3 books, I've come to the conclusion that "yep, I'm sure of it...I hate it".

[Rune_Darkfire]

I agree about 10000% with the OP.

4.0 is not a roleplaying game anymore.

It's a CRPG put onto paper.

[Justicar]

I wanted to like 4.0 really bad. After pouring through all 3 books, I've come to the conclusion that "yep, I'm sure of it...I hate it".


I told you so!

[Andoir]

I agree about 10000% with the OP.

4.0 is not a roleplaying game anymore.

It's a CRPG put onto paper.


Yeah, it is. The players are gonna have to have Pokemon trading cards to remember all of their At-Will Powers, Encounter Powers, Daily Exploits, Action Points...etc.

The DM will have a brain aneurysm by the 2nd random encounter.

[Andoir]

I told you so!


Yeah, I know you did. I am currently buying every 3.5 book I can find on the net before they all vanish.

[adamkatt]

Weaksauce?? Is that like mild salsa?

[sirgog]

Since the DDO forums are dead and boring, I surfed over to the WotC site to do some 4.0 research.

The more I read about this "edition," the more I dislike it.

Please, please, PLEASE Turbine be very judicious when considering alterations to DDO gameplay based off the 4.0 ruleset. The magic system is IMO broken beyond all belief in 4.0. Character uniqueness is virtually shot, and all classes seem to be pigeonholed into classic MMO roles, rather than allowing for the player to choose how they want their character to function.

Still giving this one a big thumbs DOWN. I get that they wanted to streamline the ruleset for online gameplay, but the abomination they've come up with is nearly offensive to my roleplaying tastes.

Dead right.

There is, IMO, only two good things about V4.0 - one is that it's easier for the DM to invent new effects that the players cannot replicate (such as dungeon areas that confer particular penalties to non-believers in a certain god, etc). In 3.5, the only way to do this within the rules is to either use spells like Unhallow (which provide pretty set effects) or to use Wish/Miracle if you want to have a different effect to Unhallow - and relying on an enemy casting Wish isn't good for a campaign of level 13 or lower. The other good thing about 4.0 is the nerfing of save-or-die effects.

But that's it - the rest of the system looks like a big steaming turd.

[Astria]

I think Something Awful summarizes 4th edition best.

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/dungons-dragons-4th.php


also, after discovering that 4e dragons have to roll to hit with breath weapons and fear auras...

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b217/lorkian/motivator635394.jpg

[Kreaper]

Weaksauce?? Is that like mild salsa?


No. More like very watered down soy sauce.

[Angelus_dead]

Please, please, PLEASE Turbine be very judicious when considering alterations to DDO gameplay based off the 4.0 ruleset. The magic system is IMO broken beyond all belief in 4.0.
That is completely backwards. The D&D 3.x magic system is broken, and 4th edition's is far far better. However, the worst parts of 3rd ed magic are so far absent from DDO (Polymorph, Fly, Gate, Superior Invisibility, Astral Projection, Craft Wonderous Item...), so this point is less important.


Still giving this one a big thumbs DOWN. I get that they wanted to streamline the ruleset for online gameplay, but the abomination they've come up with is nearly offensive to my roleplaying tastes.
That is completely backwards. The 4th edition rules are streamlined to be managable for offline gameplay. They're made to be useable without a whole ton of bookkeeping. That is a design goal unimportant to a computer-adjucated system like DDO, so it is a factor against adapting it to this game.

Aside from them, the biggest reason to avoid changing DDO to 4th edition are:
1. It's a major change, and Turbine has so-far been barely able to make minor changes (not even a skill respec)
2. 4th edition is even more strongly turn-based than 3rd, and it also relies more on repositioning and ambivalent attacks.

[Aspenor]

That is completely backwards. The D&D 3.x magic system is broken, and 4th edition's is far far better. However, the worst parts of 3rd ed magic are so far absent from DDO (Polymorph, Fly, Gate, Superior Invisibility, Astral Projection, Craft Wonderous Item...), so this point is less important.


That is completely backwards. The 4th edition rules are streamlined to be managable for offline gameplay. They're made to be useable without a whole ton of bookkeeping. That is a design goal unimportant to a computer-adjucated system like DDO, so it is a factor against adapting it to this game.

Aside from them, the biggest reason to avoid changing DDO to 4th edition are:
1. It's a major change, and Turbine has so-far been barely able to make minor changes (not even a skill respec)
2. 4th edition is even more strongly turn-based than 3rd, and it also relies more on repositioning and ambivalent attacks.

As always, you're entitled to your opinions, and I am entitled to mine.

What you see as broken and what I see as broken will not always line up. It's just the nature of being a human being.

[maddmatt70]

That is completely backwards. The D&D 3.x magic system is broken, and 4th edition's is far far better. However, the worst parts of 3rd ed magic are so far absent from DDO (Polymorph, Fly, Gate, Superior Invisibility, Astral Projection, Craft Wonderous Item...), so this point is less important.


That is completely backwards. The 4th edition rules are streamlined to be managable for offline gameplay. They're made to be useable without a whole ton of bookkeeping. That is a design goal unimportant to a computer-adjucated system like DDO, so it is a factor against adapting it to this game.

Aside from them, the biggest reason to avoid changing DDO to 4th edition are:
1. It's a major change, and Turbine has so-far been barely able to make minor changes (not even a skill respec)
2. 4th edition is even more strongly turn-based than 3rd, and it also relies more on repositioning and ambivalent attacks.

4.0 is boring. 3.5 may have been too complex for some people out there, but I was never bored with 3.5. All the classes are the same in 4.0 - they have very similar abilities now.

[Memnir]

I'm still reserving my final judgment on 4e till I actually get a group going to try it out.
However after reading the books, I can't say I am (nor the players in my campaign) in any rush to hurry up and finish our adventure arc to give it a shot. I think we've all said something along the lines of, "Well, I'll play it once to see how it runs - but it really looks like it sucks," more than once.

[Astria]

As always, you're entitled to your opinions, and I am entitled to mine.

What you see as broken and what I see as broken will not always line up. It's just the nature of being a human being.

Brokenness in regular D&D is easily countered by a creative DM :-).

[Angelus_dead]

As always, you're entitled to your opinions, and I am entitled to mine.
It's not a matter of opinion- there are testable facts that you are simply stating wrong. In addition, your various statements suggest a high degree of ignorance as to what the D&D 4th edition rules even are, and also to the problems with the 3rd edition rules, which are numerous and well-documented.

Simple test: Have you READ the 4th edition rules?

[Angelus_dead]

Brokenness in regular D&D is easily countered by a creative DM :-).
That is true- but the fact that someone can selectively ignore the rules to produce good gameplay is no way to defend the quality of the rules.

[Aspenor]

It's not a matter of opinion- there are testable facts that you are simply stating wrong. In addition, your opinion indicates a high degree of ignorance as to what the D&D 4th edition rules even are, and also to the problems with the 3rd edition rules, which are numerous and well-documented.
:rolleyes:

Testable facts, eh? What kind of tests? Multiple choice or fill in the blank?

[Mistinarperadnacles]

Thing that worries me is how much pressure will be exerted to convert to the shiny new product to sell due to retaining official licence for DDO.

4.0 sucks. I'm ashamed to call it D&D 4th edition. If it was a new standalone game - it would be fine - but to butcher the complexity of the daddy of all games and trade on the long established heritage of D&D is revolting. If it's all about being accessible to non-gamers why does it need to have anything to do with D&D, just make a new game.

Wouldn't be so bad even if 4.0 was like an all new version of the old D&D board game - a much simplified game when the Advanced 2nd Edition was the full fat big brother.

Anyone wanna join me with a placard? "Hell no Four point Oh"

[Angelus_dead]

Testable facts, eh? What kind of tests? Multiple choice or fill in the blank?

Look:

I get that they wanted to streamline the ruleset for online gameplay,
As I already explained, that is completely and totally backwards from the actual goal of the streamlining. That's not something I surmised- it's something explicitly published by the designers in their introductory materials. Unless they were lying to us, then that's a fact.

If you don't know that, then you apparently didn't look very hard at what the 4th edition changes were supposed to accomplish.

[Kris_P._Letus]

4.0 is boring. 3.5 may have been too complex for some people out there, but I was never bored with 3.5. All the classes are the same in 4.0 - they have very similar abilities now.

exactly. my group has decided to start playing 4e. we made our characters the day it came out, then went on with our 3.5 quest. the next week we swapped over to 4e. the dm and i both disliked it at first, but he said he was going to give it a few weeks to get the feel of it, and since the rest of the group wanted to try it. well, here we are. still playing 4e. im still the only one that doesnt like it. i had an awesome battle cleric rolled up in our 3.5 game, and hes now lost. after arguing with the group abotu going back to 3.5, im almost thinking of quitting the group, seeing as how I BELIEVE (as in, my opinion....) that it is boring.

"hang on guys, my 2 hour is about to recharge, then im going to rain of steel this bastage!!"

bah. another thing about 4e...why even have a cleric in the party? ohhhhhh, he can use a power of his in order to make me use one of my healing surges, even thought i dont need him to, becouse i wasnt going to use it yet.....son of a b....

yeah. playing a pnp mmo isnt all that fun, imo....feel almost like im watching my old friends playing there magic games again....

[Missing_Minds]

It's not a matter of opinion- there are testable facts that you are simply stating wrong. In addition, your various statements suggest a high degree of ignorance as to what the D&D 4th edition rules even are, and also to the problems with the 3rd edition rules, which are numerous and well-documented.

Simple test: Have you READ the 4th edition rules?

AD, at this point, GIVE IT UP. Seriously. Asp stated his opinion. No matter what you think you can come up with, Asp's opinion will always be correct for Asp. That is the glorious thing about opinions, they are ALWAYS correct for the person.


If you don't know that, then you apparently didn't look very hard at what the 4th edition changes were supposed to accomplish.

Creation of profit, lots and lots of money.

[Aspenor]

As I already explained, that is completely and totally backwards from the actual goal of the streamlining. That's not something I surmised- it's something explicitly published by the designers in their introductory materials. Unless they were lying to us, then that's a fact.

If you don't know that, then you apparently didn't look very hard at what the 4th edition changes were supposed to accomplish.
PR is a wonderful thing. Ever heard of it?

It's pretty clear to me that there was a dual reasoning behind the streamlining, but if you want to keep insulting me go right on ahead. ;) Doesn't bother me.

How about instead of arguing about semantics, you explain what you like about 4.0? That'd probably convince me better than your repetitions of "you don't know what you're talking about." That sort of attitude is pretty played out and old, A_D, but I guess we can't expect anything else from you after this long.

[Astria]

That is true- but the fact that someone can selectively ignore the rules to produce good gameplay is no way to defend the quality of the rules.

I agree that there are innate problems with 3.0 and 3.5 that required a few house rules to keep under control, if you didn't have a group that agreed not to abuse certain things, or a DM that punishes players for abusing the rules. I don't think 4th edition changed what was needed, as they did a lot of unnecessary things, such as turning saves into another version of armor class ( well, I'm nit picking as I personally enjoy rolling more dice as a player..but there are other things to it). IMO, they removed a lot of the complexity that helped make D&D a fun game (an entire axis of alignments for one), and added unnecessary complexities (at will powers, daily powers, encounter powers). In addition, they took some of the dice rolling out of the player's hands and moved it over to the DM. I can see not bogging down players, but there's a certain point where it stops feeling like player luck has anything to do with the way the game flows, and the DM is has all the power.

[Aspenor]

Simple test: Have you READ the 4th edition rules?

Not all of them, but enough of them that I don't really think I will incorporate this edition into any pnp session in which I happen to be the DM.

[Angelus_dead]

How about instead of arguing about semantics, you explain what you like about 4.0?
I never said I liked it. I don't play 4th ed now, and would try not to play it without adding at least a few serious houserules. What I did say is that various specific statements of yours were incorrect.


That'd probably convince me better than your repetitions of "you don't know what you're talking about." That sort of attitude is pretty played out and old, A_D, but I guess we can't expect anything else from you after this long.
I don't care about you, and am not interested in convincing you of anything. What I'm doing is pointing out that your opinions do not appear to be grounded in knowledge of the facts of D&D 4th edition, so your conclusions are suspect. That is to prevent you from misleading other people.

I'll say it again: Have you even read the D&D 4th edition rules?

I'm reminded of a recent newspaper article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/education/24evolution.html?sq=evolution&st=cse&scp=3&pagewanted=all) where the USA biology teacher tells his students they don't have to believe in natural selection, but they do need to understand it.

[LewsTherin]

I've been DMing a 4th edition campaign and can say with experience that it is pretty fun so far. I do agree that by streamlining it the way they did the classes are more similar than they were in previous editions. I do like the different powers and how some are daily/encounter/at will. It makes keeping track of abilities easy and combat is more exciting. What I don't like is that they have done away with a lot of the old spells. Hopefully as new books come out they will include more of the old spells.

Since I haven't played a PC yet I can't really give too much insight on the subject. But from a DM's perspective:
1) skills are easier to keep track of
2) combat is more "colorful"
3) I like that everything includes +1/2 you level (simplifies matters)
4) I don't like that you don't roll for HP or add you con bonus to them anymore
5) not quite sure about multi-classing yet
6) haven't gotten into Paragon or Epic tiers yet but I like the path choices(hopefully they add more though)
7) more "rituals" need to be added

[Angelus_dead]

In addition, they took some of the dice rolling out of the player's hands and moved it over to the DM. I can see not bogging down players, but there's a certain point where it stops feeling like player luck has anything to do with the way the game flows, and the DM is has all the power.
No, that is backwards.

In D&D 3rd, cast a fireball on 5 orcs and the DM rolls 5 saving throws.
In D&D 4th, cast a fireball on 5 orcs and the player rolls 5 attacks against them.

[omnific]

Since the DDO forums are dead and boring, I surfed over to the WotC site to do some 4.0 research.

The more I read about this "edition," the more I dislike it.

Please, please, PLEASE Turbine be very judicious when considering alterations to DDO gameplay based off the 4.0 ruleset. The magic system is IMO broken beyond all belief in 4.0. Character uniqueness is virtually shot, and all classes seem to be pigeonholed into classic MMO roles, rather than allowing for the player to choose how they want their character to function.

Still giving this one a big thumbs DOWN. I get that they wanted to streamline the ruleset for online gameplay, but the abomination they've come up with is nearly offensive to my roleplaying tastes.

Actually, I had the same thoughts after looking at 4E. But when you really play it, you feel more fun than 3R.
Yes you can't make those unique characters any more, and the powers don't make sense. But somehow, it is just more fun.

[Aspenor]

I'm reminded of a recent newspaper article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/education/24evolution.html?sq=evolution&st=cse&scp=3&pagewanted=all) where the USA biology teacher tells his students they don't have to believe in natural selection, but they do need to understand it.

How is this article relevant?

[Angelus_dead]

"hang on guys, my 2 hour is about to recharge, then im going to rain of steel this bastage!!"
That quote indicates you are not playing the D&D 4th edition rules, and instead have made some heavy modifications to them. There is no such thing as a recharge time measured in hours, or indeed any measured recharge at all. Rain of Steel is a daily power, which returns after you rest, not by any passage of time.

It's hardly fair for you to make a negative judgement of the 4th edition rules when you aren't trying to follow those rules very closely. The only thing your experience can really demonstrate is that the particular set of house-rules you're using aren't that great.

[Uska]

I really wanted to like 4E and ran a world game day and I just cant get past the fact they have killed casters. 4E is a pnp MMO for melee types and is still rather bland even for them. Going back to my 1st edition game with my house rules using 3.5's ac system and spontanous casting for clerics.

[Angelus_dead]

How is this article relevant?
As I already explained, the article demonstrates people who hold a negative attitude towards a complex subject whose details they don't even understand. It also reminds us how learning to understand the details of a subject is independent of believing it's a good idea.

Whether you like 4th edition is a separate question from whether you understand it- but if someone doesn't understand it, then his opinion of whether he likes it carries little weight.

[Uska]

That is completely backwards. The D&D 3.x magic system is broken, and 4th edition's is far far better. However, the worst parts of 3rd ed magic are so far absent from DDO (Polymorph, Fly, Gate, Superior Invisibility, Astral Projection, Craft Wonderous Item...), so this point is less important.


That is completely backwards. The 4th edition rules are streamlined to be managable for offline gameplay. They're made to be useable without a whole ton of bookkeeping. That is a design goal unimportant to a computer-adjucated system like DDO, so it is a factor against adapting it to this game.

Aside from them, the biggest reason to avoid changing DDO to 4th edition are:
1. It's a major change, and Turbine has so-far been barely able to make minor changes (not even a skill respec)
2. 4th edition is even more strongly turn-based than 3rd, and it also relies more on repositioning and ambivalent attacks.

You have no idea what your talking about 4E's magic system is boring clerics well there is almost no point to playing one I mean healing surges? you get to activate one for someone, cure light wounds is a day power good grief.

[Astria]

No, that is backwards.

In D&D 3rd, cast a fireball on 5 orcs and the DM rolls 5 saving throws.
In D&D 4th, cast a fireball on 5 orcs and the player rolls 5 attacks against them.

However.

In D&D 3rd, 5 mages cast fireball on players, each player gets a saving throw
In D%D 4th, 5 mages cast fireball on the players, the DM rolls 5 attack rolls.

This comes down to whether or not you'd rather have the power to mitigate the damage, or the power to do more damage. Given that 5 NPCs have a much shorter lifespan than the player characters, it would seem that the rolling to avoid damage from these NPCs would feel more life-saving than the ability to damage them.

[Uska]

It's not a matter of opinion- there are testable facts that you are simply stating wrong. In addition, your various statements suggest a high degree of ignorance as to what the D&D 4th edition rules even are, and also to the problems with the 3rd edition rules, which are numerous and well-documented.

Simple test: Have you READ the 4th edition rules?

I have they ruined clerics and wizards and thats a fact.

[jmelanie7]

It's not a matter of opinion- there are testable facts that you are simply stating wrong. In addition, your various statements suggest a high degree of ignorance as to what the D&D 4th edition rules even are, and also to the problems with the 3rd edition rules, which are numerous and well-documented.

Simple test: Have you READ the 4th edition rules?

I did read them i bought all 3 books, and I expected more out of it, it is simply, not DnD anymore. Ok, the game runs faster, but I have no fun. You don't even need imagination anymore. We did test it, and I'm impressed by how fast the game goes, when your character is made. What i disliked the most, is when you create your character, they make you go to page 3, then page 78, then page 5, then page 100, then page 14, then page 20, then page 4, etc, etc, etc. I was already out by creating my character. Then comes the magic items, a VERY limited amount of magical items, that are absolutly USELESS!!

About abilities, there is a fighter ability, which i dont remember the name, that deals normal damage, but deals 3 points of damage if you miss, and its a at-will ability.... Can you explain me WHEN my fighter will use his normal attack!? NEVER!! I don;t like the fact that, for damage over time, if you roll 11 or higher you save, automatically, and if you roll 10 or lower, you fail, thats 50% for EVERYONE at EVERY level.

I could continue like this all day long, just to prove my point that 3.5 is WAAAAAYYYY better, but I think it is enough for now.

So now at least you know that I know what I'm talking about, and that i DID read the books, and still think that 4.0 is the WORSE edition ever.

EDIT: Oh, and if DDO switch to 4th edition, I'm out. This game needs to stay 3.5, forever!!

[Aspenor]

As I already explained, the article demonstrates people who hold a negative attitude towards a complex subject whose details they don't even understand. It also reminds us how learning to understand the details of a subject is independent of believing it's a good idea.

Whether you like 4th edition is a separate question from whether you understand it- but if someone doesn't understand it, then his opinion of whether he likes it carries little weight.

I have a pretty good understanding of it, and I still don't like it. I don't claim to be an expert, but I'm not entirely clueless either.

I do find it rather amusing you bought the bit about 4.0 being designed for tabletop, when it obviously was designed to both make the DM's job simpler and easier, as well as for use in the digital tabletop online game. I singled out the second point in the OP, but it doesn't mean I don't understand the first. I do, I just view it as unnecessary and detracting from my enjoyment of the game.

And you really didn't explain any of that previously, at least until you made this post ;)

[branmakmuffin]

IMO, they removed a lot of the complexity that helped make D&D a fun game
Hm, I never thought I'd hear anyone say that complexity in an RPG is fun. Complexity bogs things down. Maybe by "complexity" what you really mean is "open-endedness" or "options."

[alchilito]

It's not a matter of opinion- there are testable facts that you are simply stating wrong. In addition, your various statements suggest a high degree of ignorance as to what the D&D 4th edition rules even are, and also to the problems with the 3rd edition rules, which are numerous and well-documented.

Simple test: Have you READ the 4th edition rules?

why is it that every single post you make, it sounds as if you had the final word on everything ?

you dont.

[DoctorWhofan]

We had a BBQ with our 4.0 books. REcycling stuff we didn't need and all. Made steak and baked potatoes. Mmmmmm.


Conclusion: 4.0 core set is good, but abit expensive for grilling.


Yeah, we read it.

Yeah, there was alot of neat things to help the DM we liked, and the MM set up was cool.

Yeah, the PG lost us on Don't need a background. And the vanilla waste of players. The lack of challenge of playing said characters since had no faults and very little differnace between classes. THis equals boring in my book. THe ruleset read like 5 year olds wouldn't have a problem understanding it (simplicity is nice, dumbing down is not) And to play a game, there would be a tonne of Houserules, which we try not to have since we have a rules lawyer in our group.

FInally, and again, if everyone's toon was arrested for stabbing a innocent, you cannot tell who did what, since everyone looked the same, wear virtually the same type of equipment and carrying big pointy weapons around, even the caster! SO the balance was, bring everyone to melee level.

In conclusion, outside starting fires and a well designed MM, 4.0 is stupid. However, all the 3.5 books went ont sale so we have buying them like Girls Scout Cookies.

A_D, the game sucks. If you had to put up some major house rules, there's a problem. But I have no hope of conviencing you so have fun 4.0 WoWized world. Sometimes living in the past is ok.

[WeaselKing]

why is it that every single post you make, it sounds as if you had the final word on everything ?

you dont.

/signed

[Astria]

Hm, I never thought I'd hear anyone say that complexity in an RPG is fun. Complexity bogs things down. Maybe by "complexity" what you really mean is "open-endedness" or "options."

I DO like complexity. I have a limit for how much of it I'm willing to wade through, but I enjoy things that are difficult at least some of the time. It would be very difficult to make something with many "options" that isn't complex, since the more you add to something, the more complex it becomes. My favorite books are complex, they tend to switch between 3 different perspectives (at least), and have a whole network of intertwining plots. If things are too simple, I usually get bored...with some exceptions, of course.

[Angelus_dead]

I have they ruined clerics and wizards and thats a fact.
That's true, in the sense that a party of 2 cleric + 2 wizard is no longer completely and incomprably superior to a party of cleric + wizard + rogue + fighter. (Which itself was amazingly better than a party of 2 rogue + 2 fighter)

That thing 3rd edition clerics did, where they cast Divine Favor + Divine Power + Righteous Might and then stomp around smashing things just like a fighter but with better saves and self healing? Yeah, it's gone.

And the 3rd edition wizard thing of Scrying + Greater Invisibility + Teleport + Wall of Force + Dominate Person = soloed the whole quest in 1 hour + 4 rounds? Gone too.

[tfangel]

Brokenness in regular D&D is easily countered by a creative DM :-).

This is the thing i don't hear enough. The rules are pretty much meaningless, if the DM and group have a good time. I personally like the new system, less book keeping and rules lawyers are always a good thing to me, but then there have been sessions where not a single combat happened but we all had a blast.

[Astria]

That's true, in the sense that a party of 2 cleric + 2 wizard is no longer completely and incomprably superior to a party of cleric + wizard + rogue + fighter. (Which itself was amazingly better than a party of 2 rogue + 2 fighter)

That thing 3rd edition clerics did, where they cast Divine Favor + Divine Power + Righteous Might and then stomp around smashing things just like a fighter but with better saves and self healing? Yeah, it's gone.

And the 3rd edition wizard thing of Scrying + Greater Invisibility + Teleport + Wall of Force + Dominate Person = soloed the whole quest in 1 hour + 4 rounds? Gone too.

Break enchantment + buffed cleric= cleric without many more spell slots

Enemy wizard + counter scrying + traps + ambush= dead wizard

[Sue_Dark]

Now, now, lets not forget that AD is always right. Your opinions are worthless and anything you might have that is factual is wrong unless AD stamps off on it.

I'm sorry to say that every time i see a certain person posting, I am reminded of the comic book seller in Simpsons. I dont know why.

[Angelus_dead]

This is the thing i don't hear enough. The rules are pretty much meaningless, if the DM and group have a good time.
That's the aspect of 4th edition that was seriously copied from MMORPGs and other computer games: rules that work even when strictly adhered to. 3rd edition D&D simply won't function if the DM isn't willing to break rules frequently, but the 4th edition rules come much closer to working when you really obey RAW.

[jmelanie7]

That's true, in the sense that a party of 2 cleric + 2 wizard is no longer completely and incomprably superior to a party of cleric + wizard + rogue + fighter. (Which itself was amazingly better than a party of 2 rogue + 2 fighter)

That thing 3rd edition clerics did, where they cast Divine Favor + Divine Power + Righteous Might and then stomp around smashing things just like a fighter but with better saves and self healing? Yeah, it's gone.

And the 3rd edition wizard thing of Scrying + Greater Invisibility + Teleport + Wall of Force + Dominate Person = soloed the whole quest in 1 hour + 4 rounds? Gone too.

Yeah now clerics use 1 healing SPELL per day, and lvl 30 wizards use magic missile....HOOOOOOO I'm all excited!!

And this game has been made for use via their new online feature, not for tabletop, the game stinks, I dont like it, i do KNOW what I'm talking about, but whatever I say, you'll come up saying something stupid over me, so I just give up.

[jmelanie7]

That's the aspect of 4th edition that was seriously copied from MMORPGs and other computer games: rules that work even when strictly adhered to. 3rd edition D&D simply won't function if the DM isn't willing to break rules frequently, but the 4th edition rules come much closer to working when you really obey RAW.

last thing, by obeying RAW, you prevent me from using my imagination, which DnD SHOULD be all about!! So now, I'm done!!

[Astria]

This is the thing i don't hear enough. The rules are pretty much meaningless, if the DM and group have a good time. I personally like the new system, less book keeping and rules lawyers are always a good thing to me, but then there have been sessions where not a single combat happened but we all had a blast.

I've had nights like those as well, and they can be a pretty fun change if you're use to tons of combat. My group tends to live under the policy that as long as we don't do anything insanely ridiculous with our characters, the DM doesn't throw anything outrageously ridiculous at us...and so, we play peacefully in our moderately power characters that we choose not to take to extremes.

[jmelanie7]

oh for chris.ts sake....get a life. i could care less what you say. i was making a statement. yes, i know rain of steel is a daily. yes, i know that means you use it once a day. yes, i know there is no recharge time. i was making a final fantasy reference, which, with your all encompassing knowledge, you must know about. dont come on here and tell me im not playing by the rules, or making stuff up. you have no idea how i play or what i do. from what ive noticed, you need to turn your forum police officers badge in, seeing as you dont follow the guidlines for owning one. btw...how much do you get paid for that job?? ive always wondered.

jackas.s. dont assume that i dont know the rules or a i dont play by them just becouse your a 4e fanboi.

You made my day!!

[Angelus_dead]

Break enchantment + buffed cleric= cleric without many more spell slots
No, Break Enchantment has no effect on an opponent's buffs- it can only be used to remove harmful spells from allies. Dispel Magic can potentially remove an enemy's buffs, but it has to beat opposed caster-level checks, meaning it's unreliable and will only get off a fraction of the buffs (especially since the cleric could have temporarily boosted his caster level back when he buffed, which was 6 hours ago). If an enemy caster is capable of wrecking a cleric with Dispel Magic, he's also able to wreck a fighter with Hold Person or whatever.

In the worst case: Cleric without spell slots + Word of Recall scroll = come back tommorrow and win.


Enemy wizard + counter scrying + traps + ambush= dead wizard
An enemy wizard with the ability to counter scrying by definition has his own scrying ability, meaning he'd demolish fighters, rogues, and anyone else who isn't a full caster.

[GeneralDiomedes]

Instead of making a streamlined 4.0 that is meant to make 3.5 obsolete, why not make two versions of D&D? I dunno .. maybe call them 'Basic' and 'Advanced'? :D

[jmelanie7]

No, Break Enchantment has no effect on an opponent's buffs- it can only be used to remove harmful spells from allies. Dispel Magic can potentially remove an enemy's buffs, but it has to beat opposed caster-level checks, meaning it's unreliable and will only get off a fraction of the buffs (especially since the cleric could have temporarily boosted his caster level back when he buffed, which was 6 hours ago). If an enemy caster is capable of wrecking a cleric with Dispel Magic, he's also able to wreck a fighter with Hold Person or whatever.


An enemy wizard with the ability to counter scrying would demolish fighters, rogues, and anyone else who isn't a full caster.

You are right, as always, you have such a knowledge of everything, wow, it must be tough to be you...dang....

[Alavatar]

*meaningless blather*


All I read was "Blah blah blah. I am a tool."

A_D, when are you going to learn that dictating your opinion on a forum will just make people not listen to you?

Edit: And congratulations! You are the fourth person added to my ignore list. :D

[Kris_P._Letus]

You are right, as always, you have such a knowledge of everything, wow, it must be tough to be you...dang....

i have a rl friend like this...every story you tell, hes got one just like it. but better.

dude, i went out fishin yesterday...cought me a 15 foot salmon!! (yes, a_d, i know there are no 15 foot salmon, you dont have to correct me)

really? i went out fishin last weekend and cought a 17 footer, and my brother cought a 16 footer. (again, no correction here needed, we all know)we do it all the time.

geez man...i went to this party the other night, i got so hammered...i drank like 5 beers.

oh man, reminds me of the time in college, i drank 10 beers one night. i wasnt that messed up though, just buzzed.

anyway, along with being the story beater, he is also the person who knows everything. every single detail about every single thing you talk about.

i was reading this book, it has 300 pages in it.

actually, it has 303 pages, they just dont count pages 2 and 10 becouse (goes off on wierd tangent)....

[Kris_P._Letus]

All I read was "Blah blah blah. I am a tool."

A_D, when are you going to learn that dictating your opinion on a forum will just make people not listen to you?

Edit: And congratulations! You are the fourth person added to my ignore list. :D

oh dont add him to your ignore list!! i like readin his posts...they are kind of like train wrecks....sad that they happend, and you know that there is (or soon will be) total carnage, and you just cant HELP but look!!!!!

or, they could be like a circus performance.

awwwww, how cute!!!! look at the monkey goin pee!! ewww...whats he doin?? is he drinking it??? ack!!!

[jmelanie7]

i have a rl friend like this...every story you tell, hes got one just like it. but better.

dude, i went out fishin yesterday...cought me a 15 foot salmon!! (yes, a_d, i know there are no 15 foot salmon, you dont have to correct me)

really? i went out fishin last weekend and cought a 17 footer, and my brother cought a 16 footer. (again, no correction here needed, we all know)we do it all the time.

geez man...i went to this party the other night, i got so hammered...i drank like 5 beers.

oh man, reminds me of the time in college, i drank 10 beers one night. i wasnt that messed up though, just buzzed.

anyway, along with being the story beater, he is also the person who knows everything. every single detail about every single thing you talk about.

i was reading this book, it has 300 pages in it.

actually, it has 303 pages, they just dont count pages 2 and 10 becouse (goes off on wierd tangent)....

Yeah i got rid of friends like this...

[jmelanie7]

Ok guys, lets get back to the topic......what was it again!?

[Kris_P._Letus]

Ok guys, lets get back to the topic......what was it again!?

how much 4e suxxors

[jmelanie7]

how much 4e suxxors

Oh yeah.... it does stink, end of the thread!!

[Aspenor]

end of the thread!!

this is hilariously wrong. did you even read the thread? :p :eek: :D

[jmelanie7]

I'm sorry you didnt get the sarcasm there Asp, I was imitating someone by trying to have the final word, anyways, i guess it wasnt clear enuff...

[incontinetia]

I just read the something awful review; and im afraid.
I really hope this doesnt ruin the franchise on multiple levels:(

[Yaga_Nub]

...It's just the nature of being a human being.

You're a human being?









Really? ;)

[Aspenor]

I'm sorry you didnt get the sarcasm there Asp, I was imitating someone by trying to have the final word, anyways, i guess it wasnt clear enuff...

I got your sarcasm, but I think you rolled a 1 on YOUR detect sarcasm check ;)

[jmelanie7]

I got your sarcasm, but I think you rolled a 1 on YOUR detect sarcasm check ;)

Yeah i got to change my die set now i guess eh! lol

[edventure]

Since the DDO forums are dead and boring, I surfed over to the WotC site to do some 4.0 research.

The more I read about this "edition," the more I dislike it.

Please, please, PLEASE Turbine be very judicious when considering alterations to DDO gameplay based off the 4.0 ruleset. The magic system is IMO broken beyond all belief in 4.0. Character uniqueness is virtually shot, and all classes seem to be pigeonholed into classic MMO roles, rather than allowing for the player to choose how they want their character to function.

Still giving this one a big thumbs DOWN. I get that they wanted to streamline the ruleset for online gameplay, but the abomination they've come up with is nearly offensive to my roleplaying tastes.

Hear Hear! I agree 100%. (Excepting the "nearly". It is offensive.)

Hasbro has taken all the D&D feel out of 4.0 to make it tabletop WoW.

If they want to incorporate 4.0 things into DDO that actually work that's fine. The day they convert fully to 4.0 is the day I cancel. I hate to say that, because it sounds like all the other doOo0oOom sayers, but it's the way I feel.

[maddmatt70]

That's the aspect of 4th edition that was seriously copied from MMORPGs and other computer games: rules that work even when strictly adhered to. 3rd edition D&D simply won't function if the DM isn't willing to break rules frequently, but the 4th edition rules come much closer to working when you really obey RAW.

Really 4.0 got dummed down as someone who holds himself as a scholar of sorts you must see that fact. It is not quite as an extreme difference as chess and checkers, but it is disappointing nevertheless. I like options and variability and not the level of sameness that exists in 4.0 in comparison to 3.5. Sorry, I will not go back to playing checkers when I have already tasted chess.

[Crarites]

I'll be running a full campaign setting for 4e soon but got a chance to play it for my first time at Gencon this year. I have to say that my initial impression of the 4e system is that it is really nothing more then an advanced miniatures game. The feel of the game was really dnd mini's with an expanded ruleset rather then an rpg using mini's for combat encounters. The whole system feels tilted away from roleplaying.

[jeffdnd]

You know this all started with 3rd edition (at least as far as I've played). 4.0 is to 3.5/3.0 as 3.0 was to AD&D. It's the same thing, they're making the game simpler to draw in people who don't want to learn how to play it.

Yes THAC0 and negative AC needed to be fixed but it was nice having every RPG out there unique. When 3.0 came out with the 'D20' is standardized everything, and then they used it to make every other RPG like it. That was lame, and worse, in my opinion, than the changes to 4.0 because to some of us the game was already ruined.

Actually both these instances remind me of what $OE did to SWG, dummed it down to attract 9 year olds. And I could go off on that tangent...again...grrr urge to kill rising...but I'll save that for another forum.

So anyways, just wanted to give a little background to those who didn't see this coming because 3.0/3.5/DDO is their first experience with D&D.

[Laith]

Sorry, I will not go back to playing checkers when I have already tasted chess.i think that D&D should have always had simpler core rules... you can always add complexity thru supplements, it's hard to take complexity away.

[branmakmuffin]

I DO like complexity. [..]
That is just too bizarre to reply to.

[Kris_P._Letus]

That is just too bizarre to reply to.

and yet you reply'd to it. ;)

[MacFionn]

cought me a 15 foot salmon!!

Hahahaha... that's a great image! A quick question though: if you were coughing a salmon, how did it get in your lungs in the first place?

Sorry... couldn't pass up the opportunity to get a laugh at your expense. The idea of someone coughing in a handkerchief and looking down to see a 15' salmon made me fall out of my chair laughing.

[alchilito]

hello I am really AD's alter ego trying to resurface I only want to say all of you are all always wrong and I am always right.

That is all.

[Nevthial]

I'm with ya Asp. Down with 4.0 !!

[branmakmuffin]

and yet you reply'd to it. ;)
Curse you and your logic.

[Aesop]

I wanted to like 4.0 really bad. After pouring through all 3 books, I've come to the conclusion that "yep, I'm sure of it...I hate it".

wow... just .... wow


this is exactly how I feel... like to the letter


Aesop

[Aesop]

It's not a matter of opinion- there are testable facts that you are simply stating wrong. In addition, your various statements suggest a high degree of ignorance as to what the D&D 4th edition rules even are, and also to the problems with the 3rd edition rules, which are numerous and well-documented.

Simple test: Have you READ the 4th edition rules?

Yes it sucked and made me sad... next test?

[sipior]

Then comes the magic items, a VERY limited amount of magical items, that are absolutly USELESS!!


There will be no shortage of magic items after a few more products are released, I'm quite sure. The new arms and equipment guide comes out next month, in fact. It's true that magic items have been scaled-down for this game--a deliberate design decision after the arguable excesses of late-game play in 3.5.



About abilities, there is a fighter ability, which i dont remember the name, that deals normal damage, but deals 3 points of damage if you miss, and its a at-will ability.... Can you explain me WHEN my fighter will use his normal attack!? NEVER!! I don;t like the fact that, for damage over time, if you roll 11 or higher you save, automatically, and if you roll 10 or lower, you fail, thats 50% for EVERYONE at EVERY level.


Regarding the fighter ability you mentioned, which I believe is called "Reaping Strike"--you'll use it as your default at-will, sure, but you'll use your basic attack when making attacks of opportunity, or if you're under the influence of a condition that forces you to make basic attacks only (some of the higher-level fighter powers force this, for example).

You also brought up saving throws in 4e, which I agree are poorly-named. Best not to think of them as a saving throw as in earlier editions, but as a simple way of maintaining spell durations. Instead of saying, "so-and-so is stunned for 1d4 rounds", you can now say, "so-and-so is stunned (save ends)". Sure, rolling a single die and keeping track of a stun result is no big deal, but a high-level combat can easily have dozens of effects running simultaneously, and this makes them infinitely easier to track during play. What was previously a saving throw is now the attack roll versus your reflex/will/fortitude defence. If the roll hits, you failed your saving throw :-)



EDIT: Oh, and if DDO switch to 4th edition, I'm out. This game needs to stay 3.5, forever!!

I think this comment is telling. Most of us D&D fanatics are in our thirties now, with numerous exceptions I'm sure. But just like a large chunk of our iPods is given over to the music we listened to at University, and our favourite movies are often more than a few years old now, so too our tastes in gaming have slowly ossified. We like 1st or 2nd edition because we grew up with it, and 3rd edition because it was exciting, well thought-out, and greatly revitalised the hobby after the collapse of TSR. And we hate 4th edition, because it's not nearly identical to what came before. Ladies and Gentlemen, we are becoming our parents. Maybe it's too much like a CRPG (an odd complaint coming from people who religiously play CRPGs, but let's set that aside for now). Maybe high-level wizards aren't the wrecking crew they once were (although they are still quite potent, I think a lot of old-school wizard players are upset that a fight between a 20th-level wizard and a 20th-level fighter is more or less even odds now, rather unlike before). Then again, your fighter is just two feats away from being able to resurrect his fallen comrades; try that under 3rd edition!

If you're curious about 4th edition, but don't want to lay out the dosh for all three rulebooks (perfectly understandable), pick up the first module: "H1: Keep on the Shadowfell", which contains a quick-start version of the rules. Find some friends and play through the whole thing, then decide if you want to continue. I was quite skeptical myself of many of the changes; i.e., I like to play wizards ;-) Nevertheless, I was quite pleased by how the game plays through. I confess I'm not quite sure I understand the claims made by some that the game doesn't enable role-playing, since I always thought that was more or less orthogonal to the rule set, something brought to the table by the players themselves. In any event, I found that role-playing under 4th edition is still quite easy to manage :-)

If you're interested in why some of the changes were made to the game, there's a D&D podcast which you can find on iTunes, or directly from the WotC D&D site. The podcast involves most of the developers of the 4th edition game, and I found that after hearing them describe the problems they wanted to address in the new edition, and the thought processes that led them along, most of the changes of 4th edition seemed perfectly logical, perhaps even inevitable.

Anyhow, have a go. If you like it great, if you don't, I certainly don't care :-)

Cheers,

M.

[archangelspeed]

I've played 4.0 with my pnp group, and we now have several players that refuse to play pnp on the nights we schedule for 4.0. Its just that bad. It really is. The casting system is very poorly done. The saving throws... I don't want to get started. These few points have been mentioned several times throughout this thread. As far as speed of play I don't think it is much faster, and I honestly don't feel there is any less dice rolling. I think they just shuffled around who's rolling what and when. I can go on for quite some time about things I don't like and reasons I don't like them but, there are a few things I did like. So lets touch those.

I liked the various attacks for the fighters, and rogues, and so fourth. 3.5 had its own special attacks but were often feat intensive and impractical for the most part.

The feet/yard system removed and most distances simply referred to in squares. Sounds good, easy change.

The condensed skills system.

Healing surges. Simply helped with resilience, and with the loss of decent healing allowed for parties to operate without ''healers''.

Yeah so my list is short, which brings me to 3.75. Its what we refer to in my pnp group as a rule set we often use. Its simple a set of house rules that are so far removed from 3.5 we couldn't call it 3.5 anymore. One of our changes had to do with the skills list. The skills list is huge and encumbersome so we condensed the skills list. Not quite as far as 4.0 but things like Hide and Move silently were put together as one, simple combinations like that.

The biggest thing in DND IMO is the variability of character and character creation. The hallmark of DND is lost with 4.0, as all the characters seem to blend together. In my pnp group we've begun buying up as much of the oddball books no longer being printed in 3.5, and have no intention on playing 4.0 anymore. We have taken the few things we liked, sprinkled it in where we liked and continued with our 3.75 gameplay. I hope ddo does not move to a 4.0 rule set... as this thread clearly shows a large negative response it would not bode well for the game, or turbines pockets.

[Aesop]

4.0 feels limited to the point of making me feel claustrophobic

A game needs to feel dynamic and vast in its ability to customize my character... this feels the opposite

Aesop

[Seneca_Windforge]

Note: I'm not a particularly huge DnD fan.

At this point, any complaint that's along the lines of "there aren't enough options/complexity!" is completely and utterly worthless.

Look folks, the games been out for about two months. 3rd edition has had something like eight years to crank out supplements and additional material, and so far 4th edition has only had time to put out the core books, three modules, and maybe a few other things I'm not aware of.

Did 3rd edition really have that many options when there were only the three core books? Maybe a few more, especially if you count the huge number of utterly worthless multi-class combinations (amongst the few that were good). But overall, it wasn't nearly as wide open as some people would have you think at that time. Most casters still took the same relatively small selection of spells (things like Mage Armor, Shield, Magic Missile, Shield of Faith, Barkskin, Rope Trick, Scorching Ray, and so on) while a lot of the more specific ones just sat there taking up space. You could count the number of prestige classes on one hand, and the ones that were there weren't all that spectacular. Almost every fighter took Power Attack and Cleave. Skill-wise, characters can do most of the same things, there are just fewer redundant skills on the list.

So...yeah. Give 4th edition a few years before talking about how your options are so limited.

[Seneca_Windforge]

4.0 feels limited to the point of making me feel claustrophobic

A game needs to feel dynamic and vast in its ability to customize my character... this feels the opposite

Aesop

You may want to look into a classless system, then. Class-based systems are notorious for limiting your choices.

[Angelus_dead]

There will be no shortage of magic items after a few more products are released, I'm quite sure. The new arms and equipment guide comes out next month, in fact. It's true that magic items have been scaled-down for this game--a deliberate design decision after the arguable excesses of late-game play in 3.5.
And notice that the reduced reliance on magic items is a deliberate change AWAY from the monty-haul feeling intrinsic to WOW and the like (as is the reduced quantity of magic items that a character can wear at one time)

[Aesop]

You may want to look into a classless system, then. Class-based systems are notorious for limiting your choices.

Play them


but honestly 3.5 gave a feeling of the ability to do anything

Some things are overpowered but with a little tweaking it isn't anything that can't be remedied

Aesop

[richieelias27]

EDIT: Oh, and if DDO switch to 4th edition, I'm out. This game needs to stay 3.5, forever!!

You dont have to worry about that. If they did anything with 4th edition it would be an entirely new online game. Would be far simpler to make a new one than to go back and trudge through this one trying to change it, trust me.

[Angelus_dead]

but honestly 3.5 gave a feeling of the ability to do anything
Really? 3.5 feeled like you could do anything?

Did it feel like you could play some kind of strong fighter with a sword and shield who was useful at level 15?

[jmelanie7]

There will be no shortage of magic items after a few more products are released, I'm quite sure. The new arms and equipment guide comes out next month, in fact. It's true that magic items have been scaled-down for this game--a deliberate design decision after the arguable excesses of late-game play in 3.5.



Regarding the fighter ability you mentioned, which I believe is called "Reaping Strike"--you'll use it as your default at-will, sure, but you'll use your basic attack when making attacks of opportunity, or if you're under the influence of a condition that forces you to make basic attacks only (some of the higher-level fighter powers force this, for example).

You also brought up saving throws in 4e, which I agree are poorly-named. Best not to think of them as a saving throw as in earlier editions, but as a simple way of maintaining spell durations. Instead of saying, "so-and-so is stunned for 1d4 rounds", you can now say, "so-and-so is stunned (save ends)". Sure, rolling a single die and keeping track of a stun result is no big deal, but a high-level combat can easily have dozens of effects running simultaneously, and this makes them infinitely easier to track during play. What was previously a saving throw is now the attack roll versus your reflex/will/fortitude defence. If the roll hits, you failed your saving throw :-)



I think this comment is telling. Most of us D&D fanatics are in our thirties now, with numerous exceptions I'm sure. But just like a large chunk of our iPods is given over to the music we listened to at University, and our favourite movies are often more than a few years old now, so too our tastes in gaming have slowly ossified. We like 1st or 2nd edition because we grew up with it, and 3rd edition because it was exciting, well thought-out, and greatly revitalised the hobby after the collapse of TSR. And we hate 4th edition, because it's not nearly identical to what came before. Ladies and Gentlemen, we are becoming our parents. Maybe it's too much like a CRPG (an odd complaint coming from people who religiously play CRPGs, but let's set that aside for now). Maybe high-level wizards aren't the wrecking crew they once were (although they are still quite potent, I think a lot of old-school wizard players are upset that a fight between a 20th-level wizard and a 20th-level fighter is more or less even odds now, rather unlike before). Then again, your fighter is just two feats away from being able to resurrect his fallen comrades; try that under 3rd edition!

If you're curious about 4th edition, but don't want to lay out the dosh for all three rulebooks (perfectly understandable), pick up the first module: "H1: Keep on the Shadowfell", which contains a quick-start version of the rules. Find some friends and play through the whole thing, then decide if you want to continue. I was quite skeptical myself of many of the changes; i.e., I like to play wizards ;-) Nevertheless, I was quite pleased by how the game plays through. I confess I'm not quite sure I understand the claims made by some that the game doesn't enable role-playing, since I always thought that was more or less orthogonal to the rule set, something brought to the table by the players themselves. In any event, I found that role-playing under 4th edition is still quite easy to manage :-)

If you're interested in why some of the changes were made to the game, there's a D&D podcast which you can find on iTunes, or directly from the WotC D&D site. The podcast involves most of the developers of the 4th edition game, and I found that after hearing them describe the problems they wanted to address in the new edition, and the thought processes that led them along, most of the changes of 4th edition seemed perfectly logical, perhaps even inevitable.

Anyhow, have a go. If you like it great, if you don't, I certainly don't care :-)

Cheers,

M.

Ok, I can't post about something I don't know of, so the arms and equipment guide is not out yet, I cannot tell you if there is goodies in there or not. What i can tell you, is that what we CURRENTLY have for 4E, seems to have been done in a hurry to realease it, like not incorporating all the core classes, and I'm sure you know which ones I'm talking about. A very, very, very bad character generation, as I said make you flip pages like never before. It seems to be all chaotic in the books. I don't like the new alignments either, no taste in there. I'm not here to say you all need to hate 4E, I'm just explaining why I dislike it, and why I would not like it in DDO. It has nothing to do with that I'm used to 3.5, or that I've been used to First or second edition, it has all about the fact that it is supposed to be involving my imagination, and on that point, 4E is really really far from the goal. And all the power-gaming in 3.5 everyone is talking about, it can be managed by the DM. Ill take A_D's example of a high level wizard capable of counter-spelling and ambushing a party, would be too powerful for the fighter, then maybe the evil wizard spent ALOT of spell slots during the day, leaving him a little bit more vulnerable, again the CR would be adjusted in the same way. The same goes with Wish and miracle, my players had some serious surprises when their wishes werent VERY VERY clear. Same goes for weapons, I never ROLLEd for a treasure, I always picked it up so it is balanced. I just don't see why people think the wizard was TOO powerful, you just gotta remind the player there will always be someone more powerful than him. I don;t see where the 3.5 problems are, honnestly, I'm not saying that 3.5 is PERFECT, I just think that 4E is just waaaaayyyyyyy behind in terms of catching me.

[sipior]

Ok, I can't post about something I don't know of, so the arms and equipment guide is not out yet, I cannot tell you if there is goodies in there or not. What i can tell you, is that what we CURRENTLY have for 4E, seems to have been done in a hurry to realease it, like not incorporating all the core classes, and I'm sure you know which ones I'm talking about.


Sure, it's certainly true that a few classes are missing. The PHB II will be out in a few months, covering most of those, along with a few extra. Because each class gets its own set of powers, the space taken up with each class description is much larger than before. Not all of the core classes would fit in a reasonable-length PHB. Again, 3rd edition has been cranking stuff out for years now; it doesn't seem fair to expect 4th edition to compete on the size of game material and character options only a few months out of the gate.



It has nothing to do with that I'm used to 3.5, or that I've been used to First or second edition, it has all about the fact that it is supposed to be involving my imagination, and on that point, 4E is really really far from the goal.


I confess I'm not sure that I understand your point here. Surely your imagination is independent of the rule books that you use? Also, you mentioned DMs ability to adjust the game in response to the players...why would the DM suddenly be powerless to do so in a 4th edition game? They are the final arbiter, in any edition! (so sayeth the blessed Gygax :))

Cheers,

M.

[sipior]

Yeah so my list is short, which brings me to 3.75. Its what we refer to in my pnp group as a rule set we often use. Its simple a set of house rules that are so far removed from 3.5 we couldn't call it 3.5 anymore. One of our changes had to do with the skills list. The skills list is huge and encumbersome so we condensed the skills list. Not quite as far as 4.0 but things like Hide and Move silently were put together as one, simple combinations like that.


Not sure if you know about Paizo's Pathfinder RPG, which is essentially the open gaming licence version of D&D 3.5, with a number of such tweaks. They've also been calling it "3.75". There's a free download of the beta-version of the rules on their website; might be worth a look for your group. Basically, this game will form the core of their Pathfinder adventure path series (they were the previous publishers of Dragon & Dungeon magazines, before last September).

Cheers,

M.

[Angelus_dead]

I confess I'm not sure that I understand your point here. Surely your imagination is independent of the rule books that you use?
Previous D&D books (often "AD&D" back then) devoted a good deal of space to explaining the concept of RPGs as cooperative storytelling and had the notable motto "Products of your Imagination" on the cover. The 4th edition books are rather skimpy in that regard, and are probably written from the viewpoint that everyone knows this stuff and needs no reminder. That can create an impression that the rules are more self-contained in their meaning, as is the case with MtG and such.

[toughguyjoe]

Really? 3.5 feeled like you could do anything?

Did it feel like you could play some kind of strong fighter with a sword and shield who was useful at level 15?


Absolutely. EVERY TIME.

Fighter12/Knight Protector3

Sword and Board supreme cleave respectable AC fighter that makes a shining example as a party leader, giving you good roleplaying options as a tactician/morale officer in combat, while holding up the front line with powerful attacks.

Just because wielding a greataxe or greatsword does a boat load more damage, doesn't mean that the 3.5 rules are set up to take that damage and all other weapon damage be damned.

You seem to have a very MMO attitude about 3.5, like every fighter is built the same, every game is run the same, every wizard uses the same spells to suck the fun out of the game.

Where the heck did you develop that idea?

Is your PNP group a bunch of vagines who just moan and complain at eachother rather than deciding on a theme making characters and having a blast?

And if they are, could you yell at them instead of us?

[Treerat]

Gee you mean you people only just NOW figured out what anyone who played Magic the Gathering could tell you?

This is Wizards of the Coast - the same company that would recycle the same creature with new art work (somewhat), a new name, and a new border, remove the old version from the tournament scene, then sell the "pegasus 2.0" in the expansion. These aren't the craftsmen/ gamers who created the games like Battletech and D&D/ AD&D; these are corporate drones who either never played or maybe tried it once and quit when the other kids at school said "you play D&D - you're weird." What they do know are to market to the lowest common denominator, that hype sells in the short term, and to hire lawyers who can lock up a deal tight to chase out any competition.

This is why I hung on to my 1st & 2nd ed books, and assort other gaming odds-and-ends. Wizards saw money signs when TSR was floundering, made the grab, and now intend to apply their usual "quantity of product over quality of product" to the D&D label. Ironically, all these changes they're making? They were part and parcel of those editions - you just had to have either a few more rule books (Skills & Powers, various class hand books, etc) or grasp that as DM you have artistic license to change things as you wish as long as the rules are consistent and everyone has fun. Pity that they had to go shoot the games long-term survivability & reputation in the interest of making fast profits.

[Aesop]

Really? 3.5 feeled like you could do anything?

Did it feel like you could play some kind of strong fighter with a sword and shield who was useful at level 15?

Yep

I'm not saying there aren't flaws and that magic wasn't a huge thing at the high level (which is why a lot of our games recycled around level 10 or so), but I did feel like even a fighter had its place. Though I perfer Rogues

[Angelus_dead]

Sword and Board supreme cleave respectable AC fighter that makes a shining example as a party leader, giving you good roleplaying options as a tactician/morale officer in combat, while holding up the front line with powerful attacks.
There is obviously nothing in the D&D 3e rules that makes this fighter into a party leader, tactician, or morale officer. Any ability to perform those functions is unrelated to the evaluation of the game rules.
Also, although this is more difficult to observe, there's nothing that lets him "hold the line" or "attack powerfully" either- not in a way that's effective against CR 15 monsters.



You seem to have a very MMO attitude about 3.5, like every fighter is built the same, every game is run the same, every wizard uses the same spells to suck the fun out of the game.

Where the heck did you develop that idea?

Is your PNP group a bunch of vagines who just moan and complain at eachother rather than deciding on a theme making characters and having a blast?
As I already explained, the ability of some people to modify or selectively ignore the game rules cannot be used to defend the quality of those rules.

[Raithe]

I confess I'm not quite sure I understand the claims made by some that the game doesn't enable role-playing, since I always thought that was more or less orthogonal to the rule set, something brought to the table by the players themselves. In any event, I found that role-playing under 4th edition is still quite easy to manage :-)


The rules don't make the roleplaying, that is true. The rules, however, can most definitely ruin the roleplay. You can take DDO as an excellent example of that. While classes themselves do nothing to enforce or ****** good roleplay, they used to be carefully sculpted so that a party makeup where each member is a unique class also had unique responsibilities and capabilities. Even in groups with heavy multi-classed characters there would normally be one who was specialized and one who was backup.

The idea that roleplaying is all about talking in a funny voice and having a fear of something silly is a superficial analysis. Roleplaying in a good RPG is often about what actions you are likely to take in a lifethreatening or dangerous scenario, and how and when your character is going to solve problems. Roleplaying is also about the truthful analysis of how things would realistically play out in a fantastical world. Wizards should be more powerful than fighters at higher levels, and the interesting parts of roleplaying would include the Wizard and Fighter both knowing that and their corresponding relationship regardless. Quests can always be designed in a manner (extremely long, lots of encounters, needing manual dexterity or athletic skill, etc.) to make things interesting for all parties - and it has always been the responsibility of the quest maker to see this achieved, not the class designer.

I think 4th edition fails to take these concepts into consideration.

[toughguyjoe]

There is obviously nothing in the D&D 3e rules that makes this fighter into a party leader, tactician, or morale officer. Any ability to perform those functions is unrelated to the evaluation of the game rules.
Also, although this is more difficult to observe, there's nothing that lets him "hold the line" or "attack powerfully" either- not in a way that's effective against CR 15 monsters.



Ah, i see your problem oh master of masters.

If i make a moderate character, not rerolling my stats until i get amazing numbers across the board, get monty hauled into huge numbers of magical items, and have the same twink companions, then perhaps, in my nmoderate power, the DM will be graceful enough not to send ONLY cr 15 monsters against my party. I believe a good encounter might look like:

4 CR 9 monsters.
2 CR 11 monsters
1 CR 13 monster.

That sounds like a decent challenge for 4 level 15 characters. Maybe your encounters look more like this:

4 CR 15 monsters.

I don't know, as i don't play PNP at your gaming table. Thank the dieties and demi gods :D

now as far as bashing my build as "leader"

from Complete Warrior:

The few, the proud, the knight protectors are the martial characters dedicated to restoring the ideals of chivalry defore they fade forever. The protectors see moral decay everywhere they look in the world around them, brought on by a lapse in ethical behavior. Like paladins KNight protectors adhere to a rigid code of behavior that embraces such values as honor, honesty, chivalry, and courage. Unlike paladins the first duty of knight protectors is to this code and the ideals for which it stands, rather than to a diety or holy order. A protector is expected to display these ideals in all aspects of his behavior and throughout all his actions and deeds, however arduous they may be.

Yeah definatly sounds like the kind of guy who would sit back and say "sure guys, we'll just do whatever for a mission. just let someone random pick, i don't mind."

Sounds more like the Leader type to me.

Oh yeah, the code:


Courage and enterprise in obedience to the order
defense of any mission unto death
Respect for all peers and equals, courtesy to all lessers
combat is glory. battle is the truest sense of self worth. war is the flowering of the chivalric ideal.
personal glory above all in combat
death before dishonor.

Hmm. maybe a knight protector WOULD make a good tactician or moralish officer, but i guess you could play ANY character that way. this one just seems to BEG for it.

[toughguyjoe]

There is obviously nothing in the D&D 3e rules that makes this fighter into a party leader, tactician, or morale officer. Any ability to perform those functions is unrelated to the evaluation of the game rules.
Also, although this is more difficult to observe, there's nothing that lets him "hold the line" or "attack powerfully" either- not in a way that's effective against CR 15 monsters.



As I already explained, the ability of some people to modify or selectively ignore the game rules cannot be used to defend the quality of those rules.

Oh master of masters, please define for me where i said i was going to change any rules what-so-ever.

Please. i'm begging you to show me. literally.

here is what you quoted from me before putting up that last little nugget of wisdom, with the snazzy bold lettering.


Quote:
Originally Posted by toughguyjoe
You seem to have a very MMO attitude about 3.5, like every fighter is built the same, every game is run the same, every wizard uses the same spells to suck the fun out of the game.

Where the heck did you develop that idea?

Is your PNP group a bunch of vagines who just moan and complain at eachother rather than deciding on a theme making characters and having a blast?


Where the hell did i say anything about rules in that? or ANY of my posts? i've only made a couple...pls. share your wisdom.

[Angelus_dead]

Oh master of masters, please define for me where i said i was going to change any rules what-so-ever.

Please. i'm begging you to show me. literally.
Alright. Here:
"You seem to have a very MMO attitude about 3.5, like every fighter is built the same, every game is run the same, every wizard uses the same spells to suck the fun out of the game."
What you're saying is that wizard players should hold back from using effective spells, because otherwise they win too easily and don't let the fighters have any fun. That's true, but to use that thinking means to ignore the rules that provide wizards with spells they can use to win without meatshield help.

[Frodo_Lives]

I've read the 4.0 books, and quite frankly I'm not going to waste an evenings playtime on trying them out.

3.X has it's flaws but 4.0 doesn't even have that D&D feel to it.

I have never been a big fan of supplements as it seems to lead to the more money you spend on books has a direct impact on how powerful you can make your character. Cash grabs never impress me, and splitting everything into 53 different "must have" books is a definate cash grab.

[Angelus_dead]

now as far as bashing my build as "leader"
from Complete Warrior:
blah blah blah
Yeah definatly sounds like the kind of guy who would sit back and say "sure guys, we'll just do whatever for a mission. just let someone random pick, i don't mind."
Sounds more like the Leader type to me.
Ok, I thought this was too obvious to need explaining, but here goes:
What you quoted isn't game rules. It's what is called "flavor text", which gives suggestions on what a character is likely to do, but actually has no mechanical impact on his abilities. Any player in the group may decide to roleplay himself as a leader, and the choice of a knight class is only cosmetic in this regard. It also is irrelevant to my question about a strong guy being effective with a sword and shield.

[Naash]

Alright. Here:
"You seem to have a very MMO attitude about 3.5, like every fighter is built the same, every game is run the same, every wizard uses the same spells to suck the fun out of the game."
What you're saying is that wizard players should hold back from using effective spells, because otherwise they win too easily and don't let the fighters have any fun. That's true, but to use that thinking means to ignore the rules that provide wizards with spells they can use to win without meatshield help.

I think you have a gas leak in your house because that is not even close.
Turn your criticism filter down and reread please.

[Angelus_dead]

Roleplaying is also about the truthful analysis of how things would realistically play out in a fantastical world. Wizards should be more powerful than fighters at higher levels, and the interesting parts of roleplaying would include the Wizard and Fighter both knowing that and their corresponding relationship regardless.
Absolutely not. The idea that "wizards are more powerful than a fighter of the same level" is self contradictory, because the word "level" is defined in game-terms to mean "amount of power".

Thus your claim is equivalent to "X > X". If the game setting has wizards in general more powerful than fighters, that's one thing, but in that case wizards would be defined as systematically higher level than fighters. If you look back at myth or fantasy fiction, the reason wizards are typically more powerful than warriors is because they've got hundreds of years of experience and practice, or in other words, are higher level.

PS. It's not "realism"; it's "verisimilitude".

[toughguyjoe]

Alright. Here:
"You seem to have a very MMO attitude about 3.5, like every fighter is built the same, every game is run the same, every wizard uses the same spells to suck the fun out of the game."
What you're saying is that wizard players should hold back from using effective spells, because otherwise they win too easily and don't let the fighters have any fun. That's true, but to use that thinking means to ignore the rules that provide wizards with spells they can use to win without meatshield help.


Ok so now we get to the part where YOU tell ME what I was saying.

Give me a scenario smart guy. i'll give you ten ways a rogue can get through, then a lsit of different spells a wizard can use to circumvent the situation.

YOU are the one who seems stuck in a rut in 3.5 it seems like you NEED to use those "powerful" spells. sounds like your wizards like to use a certain spell list as a crutch, rather than use your spells in creative ways. Bear in mind that being creative with the USE of a spell DOES have things to do with the rules.

Example:

Using a wall of stone to trap a monster that has been lured into a suitable space.

the fact that the situation is possible, and also a fairly flimsy "plan" that can be worked by a group of players, maybe that spell could have a place in a wizards spell allotment for the day? or is it just useless and we should cut out big damage dealers and invisiblity crutch spells.

I say that MOST(not all) spells from 3.5 can be useful, with the rules properly applied, if you USE YOUR **** NOGGIN and DEFEAT THE ENCOUNTER which was set up by your DM.

Can you beat most encounters with a small set of spells? Yeah, probably. especially if you DM lacks the ability to make balanced encounters.

Can you beat most encounters with the spells that fall outside of that small set. absolutely. you could even be a sport and Mix the two together, and make a character that is ready for everything, not just the things the best spells in the game are made to combat.

[toughguyjoe]

Ok, I thought this was too obvious to need explaining, but here goes:
What you quoted isn't game rules. It's what is called "flavor text", which gives suggestions on what a character is likely to do, but actually has no mechanical impact on his abilities. Any player in the group may decide to roleplay himself as a leader, and the choice of a knight class is only cosmetic in this regard. It also is irrelevant to my question about a strong guy being effective with a sword and shield.


tell me again how a Prestige class is ONLY a tan and white set of things you get at every level and descriptions therof?


THIS GAME IS MADEMADEMADEMADEMADEMADE ON FLAVOR TEXT!!!!!!!!!!!


Flavor text is why we play dammit. what don't you get?

[Angelus_dead]

YOU are the one who seems stuck in a rut in 3.5 it seems like you NEED to use those "powerful" spells. sounds like your wizards like to use a certain spell list as a crutch, rather than use your spells in creative ways. Bear in mind that being creative with the USE of a spell DOES have things to do with the rules.
You're apparently confused as to the state of the discussion. The fact that many spells are useful when creatively applied completely supports my position, and undermines your contention that the strong guy with a sword and shield is effective at level 15.

The biggest part of the reason the high-level sword and board fighter is not effective is because whatever he can do, a wizard can think of 3-5 spells to do it faster, safer, and cooler.

However, if the wizard player intentionally ignores rules that allow him (your example) to safely win a whole fight with Wall of Stone, then there is more work for the fighter to do and make himself seem useful.

[Angelus_dead]

THIS GAME IS MADEMADEMADEMADEMADEMADE ON FLAVOR TEXT!!!!!!!!!!!

Flavor text is why we play dammit. what don't you get?
Maybe an example from DDO will help you understand.

Look at the Monk class in DDO. The flavor text says he's a master of unarmed combat- but in reality, monks do more damage with weapons.
Look at the Paladin class in DDO. The flavor text says he's a bold leader in the fight against evil- but in reality, rangers or barbarians are better against a Pit Fiend than he is, and it's common to see Shroud LFMs with paladins unselected.

If the game rules are well-designed then they will support the flavor text, but that is not necessarily the case. Game design fans call this the "fluff vs crunch" problem.

[toughguyjoe]

You're apparently confused as to the state of the discussion. The fact that many spells are useful when creatively applied completely supports my position, and undermines your contention that the strong guy with a sword and shield is effective at level 15.

The biggest part of the reason the high-level sword and board fighter is not effective is because whatever he can do, a wizard can think of 3-5 spells to do it faster, safer, and cooler.

However, if the wizard player intentionally ignores that allow him (your example) to safely win a whole fight with Wall of Stone, then there is more work for the fighter to do and make himself seem useful.


Holy Sh*t. now i WANT you to play at my table. come on down son. bring your "I can do anything wizard" and he'll beg for a fighter to stand in frotn of him before the end.

Did you know that jumping away from a group of hobgoblins while trying to kill them with a cone of cold won't work against mosnters controlled by a Dm with any sort of i dunno...brain?

This game is a chass match. it is not a game of pong. you don't hit the cone of cold button, or any other button for that matter and win.

A fighter can swing his sword for eons. a good ac sword and board level 15 fighter can win a battle based on picking his time and place to fight. If his opponents are ALL the same CR as he, then his task becomes harder, but NOT impossible.

A wizard fighting all monsters of the same CR as he also is in a bind. he can fly, throw his spells from a distance, making his way much more preferable. however, do monsters sit there and allow a wizard to "pwn" them as he sees fit? not if they're smart.

So. I'll take the achilito stance. You're always right. I'm wrong. please send me a list of your toons so that if i happen to see them in game, i can immediately /grovel.

you're obviously a higher being sent to the internet to make us all realize the folly of our ways.

[toughguyjoe]

Maybe an example from DDO will help you understand.

Look at the Monk class in DDO. The flavor text says he's a master of unarmed combat- but in reality, monks do more damage with weapons.
Look at the Paladin class in DDO. The flavor text says he's a bold leader in the fight against evil- but in reality, rangers or barbarians are better against a Pit Fiend than he is, and it's common to see Shroud LFMs with paladins unselected.

If the game rules are well-designed then they will support the flavor text, but that is not necessarily the case. Game design fans call this the "fluff vs crunch" problem.


DDO does not count. DDO is NOT DND. in DND i can make a paladin that is BETTER than a fighter or barbarian against a pit fiend, as i am immune to their fear aura, and have better saving throws against their abilities.

We were talking about PNP Not DDO.

Like i said, you are STUCK IN AN MMO FRAME OF MIND.

[vtecfiend99]

Brokenness in regular D&D is easily countered by a creative DM :-).

no doubt. there is not A SINGLE thing in pnp that is broken if you dont want it to be as the dm. especially instakill effects... for christs sake YOU CONTROL THE SAVES lol. Been playing for years and i dont even take those spells because they are what i like to call "soft banned" in my group. meaning, behind that screen, dm always saves.

4th ed. seems like dnd light. like, you play that then you grow up and play 3.5 or even better 2nd ed lol.

[Angelus_dead]

DDO does not count. DDO is NOT DND. in DND i can make a paladin that is BETTER than a fighter or barbarian against a pit fiend, as i am immune to their fear aura, and have better saving throws against their abilities.
That happens to be incorrect, because the most dangerous ability of a Pit Fiend is the Blasphemy effect usuable every round, against which the best defense is an evil alignment (which a paladin can't have). That's unimportant, though, because any of those melee guys are worse than spellcasters for this purpose.


We were talking about PNP Not DDO.

Like i said, you are STUCK IN AN MMO FRAME OF MIND.
As I already explained, that is true to the extent that the "MMO frame of mind" includes strict obedience to the game rules. That is an unavoidable necessity of having the game refereed by a computer server, instead of a live human.

My point is that if you obey them strictly (like a computer would have to), the rules of D&D 3rd edition do not support a sword & board fighter being as effective as either a two-hand fighter, or a spellcaster.

[Angelus_dead]

Holy Sh*t. now i WANT you to play at my table. come on down son. bring your "I can do anything wizard" and he'll beg for a fighter to stand in frotn of him before the end.
Well, yes, I do believe you'd do that. Like many players, you apparently modify the D&D rules to cheat against spellcasters and make fighters feel useful. You have certainly indicated that's the result you want to achieve, and you've established a foregone conclusion that it will happen. Everybody knows that if a DM wants a railroaded outcome, the players can't really stop him and will just get their characters hurt if they try.

There's nothing wrong with playing that way, because it is likely to make the game more fun, which is the whole point. But if you do those kinds of things, you can't make claims about what the rules actually do.

[Treerat]

There is obviously nothing in the D&D 3e rules that makes this fighter into a party leader, tactician, or morale officer. Any ability to perform those functions is unrelated to the evaluation of the game rules.
Also, although this is more difficult to observe, there's nothing that lets him "hold the line" or "attack powerfully" either- not in a way that's effective against CR 15 monsters.

Hey loud-mouth, these is a reason they don't have specific in-game abilities to do that. It's called imagination. You know, that thing that lets someone create a background for the character that indicates potential strengths, weaknesses, and abilities.

You want a morale officer out of a fighter? How about not tanking his charisma and giving him a background reason for being able to inspire others (a city politician's son well versed in speaking to sway & inspire others to do things they normally wouldn't). If the DM isn't some "it better be printed in this book or I won't think about it" moron (if he or she is; time to find a new DM) they'll probably jump all over that (I used to freak out new people with how excited I would get over a good background). Maybe even say that when characters need to make a save against fear (dragon, spell, just plain scary situation) to avoid penalties (even if it normally doesn't allow a save), if said player gives a rousing speech beforehand they can apply his charisma modifier to the roll. That sounds like someone I would want boosting my characters chances of keeping control of his bladder when that ancient red dragon pokes its toothy maw into view for the first time.

Tactician? How about the fighter with a high intelligence and good wisdom whose background page says she was the only child of a border-knight and her father raised her to be his heir and schooled her in the military methods until his death and the appointment of another family to rule in the place of a "mere woman." A DM could say that if she is given a round or two to size up a situation and come up with a plan, as long the party follows that plan they can apply part of her intelligence modifier to initiative and specialized attacks (called shots, special maneuvers, etc) that are part of that plan.

Party leader? How about the fighter who has a good charisma and wisdom whose background includes being apprenticed to a prosperous merchant long enough to have been made overseer of the clerks or laborers. He's obviously got the experience of guiding others as well as assessing an individuals abilities then putting them where they can do the most good. He would also be the one who is used to thinking ahead; asking the groups resident dwarf what they should bring for going underground, making sure divine & arcane casters coordinate what spells they're bringing and carry enough components (but not so many they're needless burdened), having the rogue find out what the local criminals know about the dungeon in question (maybe it was an old prison, or the hideout for a gang long-since dead, etc). I had a few like in my games; since as DM I knew what they characters would need for an encounter, I made a hidden roll against the players wisdom score (2nd ed rules here); for each point by which it passed the margin I would "prod" the characters memory by saying "you remember hearing something about how so-and-so item is in demand for going into this sort of dungeon" where so-and-so was an item they would need and hadn't thought to bring.

You see, a good player and dungeon master do not need abilities in a book to make a particular type of character. That is part of the cooperation between DM and PC that leads to the telling of the story that is a particular adventure or campaign. The player doesn't just assign the stats to the character; they also (or should be) giving the character a history that says WHY they are insanely strong, slow-witted, and so single-minded that they are almost impossible to distract (hello bonus to will saves against charm & illusion anyone?). The dungeon master then takes that back ground and character and decides what sort of extra abilities would fit and how he or she can use them to further the storyline.



As I already explained, the ability of some people to modify or selectively ignore the game rules cannot be used to defend the quality of those rules.

Actually... the ability of some people to get around the rules is WHY those are high-quality rules best left alone. Because people who put some thought into their actions instead of just "mashing their attack button" could get around just about any limitation. Just because you don't allow your players to think creatively is no reason to deny that to someone else. If I remember my DM's guide regarding experience allotment right, there was even a listed bonus for players coming up with creative solutions. I'm sure someone here knows the type; the fighter who prevents the baddie from finishing the final gesture in its doomsday spell by pinning its arm to the its side with an arrow, the rogue who when the evil noble says "take another step and I'll shatter this gem that holds the princesses soul" pulls out an identical gem and goes "you mean this gem that I swapped for that worthless hunk of colored glass you're holding when you were checking out the clerics chest?" Or the mage who when faced with a rampaging golem that is 100% immune to all spells directed at it, baits said golem onto a slope then summons grease under it and sends it sliding down into portal to the elemental plane of water.

Just because a different use of a particular ability might not be obvious, doesn't mean it's automatically disallowed. I know all the memorable gaming sessions I had where when someone would come up with the crazy plan and then pulled it off. Those were also the same players who made the DM stretch his mind a bit, or if it was the DM who pulled out the crazy plan, that we players griped about being a neutral evil fiend who enjoyed playing mind games with mere mortals. I still laugh whenever I think about the DM who plane-shifted our party to World War II in the middle of a tank battle. He was grinning like a nutcase until one of the mages (who had a fetish for transmutations and alchemy) used his "Morical's Fabled Mass Transmuation" boosted through a house rule (ever higher level spell "feed" into a casting increased the area by 10%) to transmute "whatever grants these iron beasts life" into "the liquid which burns with a blue flame" (aka methane). Scratch one SS panzer company when their fuel tanks exploded and add in some very unsettled GI's. Plus a DM who had a look somewhere between shock and "I'm going to kill you in the most painful way possible, I just can't think of one painful enough now."

[Kistilan]

Since the DDO forums are dead and boring, I surfed over to the WotC site to do some 4.0 research.

The more I read about this "edition," the more I dislike it.

Please, please, PLEASE Turbine be very judicious when considering alterations to DDO gameplay based off the 4.0 ruleset. The magic system is IMO broken beyond all belief in 4.0. Character uniqueness is virtually shot, and all classes seem to be pigeonholed into classic MMO roles, rather than allowing for the player to choose how they want their character to function.

Still giving this one a big thumbs DOWN. I get that they wanted to streamline the ruleset for online gameplay, but the abomination they've come up with is nearly offensive to my roleplaying tastes.

This is what you spent today doing? You and me should chit-chat more. I could have answered this for you (and big-time agree with your assessment). I've got the 3 books that came out on release and that's all I'm purchasing, EVER. 3.0/3.5 or earlier for life. Fifth Edition in 5 years could make a come-back, but it'll be a marketing scheme to return to 3.5/3.0 & Second/Revised game play and ideas.

Ok I lied. I might buy Spelljammer or Planescape material simply for the non-MTG content they manage to squeeze between the City of Brass and Weatherlight lore they've crammed into the new Cosmology. However, if it lacks any non-MTG content... well, then I won't buy those expansion books either.

Anyway, about 3 months ago this thread was delivered with similar feelings, Asp. Just throwing that out there. A lot of people were hopeful and a lot of people were down-right against 4th Edit. Many made a similar statement to Turbine requesting that they not follow in the 4th Edit and screw up our 3.5 gameplay.

[Angelus_dead]

no doubt. there is not A SINGLE thing in pnp that is broken if you dont want it to be as the dm. especially instakill effects... for christs sake YOU CONTROL THE SAVES lol.
Well yes, of course. That's what I've been saying:
If the DM cheats and selectively ignores some rules, then you may have fun playing- but you can't honestly claim your results truly represent what the D&D 3e rules do.

On the D&D forum this is known as the Oberoni Fallacy (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=46916): "the existence of a rule stating that, ‘the rules can be changed,’ can be used to excuse design flaws in the actual rules". This (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=941301) appears to be a helpful expansion.

Please remember that this thread is on a DDO message board, so the underlying context is rules that would be applied without a human DM watching every single saving throw to see if he should nudge it to a more-fun number.

[toughguyjoe]

Well, yes, I do believe you'd do that. Like many players, you apparently modify the D&D rules to cheat against spellcasters and make fighters feel useful. You have certainly indicated that's the result you want to achieve, and you've established a foregone conclusion that it will happen. Everybody knows that if a DM wants a railroaded outcome, the players can't really stop him and will just get their characters hurt if they try.

There's nothing wrong with playing that way, because it is likely to make the game more fun, which is the whole point. But if you do those kinds of things, you can't make claims about what the rules actually do.

Have you ever seen a two handed fighter killed by something his CR? what was the cause of death? weapon damage? probably. does having the AC of a sword and board fighter make it so that a monster of his CR might miss him FAR more often than a Two handed fighter? more than likely.

BTW, if a pit fiend spams blasphemy at a party, that party should look for a new DM. Also, that statement does not come from a possision of, the pit fiend should be a nice guy and not use blashpemy all the time. It comes from the pit fiend using the ability ONCE, and if no one dissappears back to their own plane(provided you are on his home plane) or the effects are minimal due to everyone passing their saves, he MIGHT think to use his other powers once or twice before spamming something that a METAGAMING pit fiend knows will work "eventually"

I think thats your problem oh master of masters, you METAGAME a little too much. the rules system is of course, NOT perfect but dismissing an entire character archtype, is ridonkulous.

I'm gonna go play DDO now. which i WISH was just a tad more like DND and had a tad less A_D in it.

[Kistilan]

Well yes, of course. That's what I've been saying:
If the DM cheats and selectively ignores some rules, then you may have fun playing- but you can't honestly claim your results truly represent what the D&D 3e rules do.

On the D&D forum this is known as the Oberoni Fallacy (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=46916): "the existence of a rule stating that, ‘the rules can be changed,’ can be used to excuse design flaws in the actual rules". This (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=941301) appears to be a helpful expansion.

Please remember that this thread is on a DDO message board, so the underlying context is rules that would be applied without a human DM watching every single saving throw to see if he should nudge it to a more-fun number.

I'm pretty sure that D&D has always asserted that their rules can be modified or changed and that everything is open to DM/GM Interpretation, such as that fallacy up there. I mean, if you didn't want changed or modified rules to compensate for a HUGE game system (and potential flaws) break out the fantasy shoots and ladders game -- Hero's Quest.

DMs really can't cheat since they're not playing, but guiding a story.

There are 2 ways to play Dungeons and Dragons or any RPG with openly changeable/alterable rules:

1. As a story that can be completed based upon the actions and intuition or ingenuity of the players, but may result in failure by not grasping the story's concept ie "role-play the game and throw bones to good rpers that are playing correctly."

2. Completely by the dice To The Pain! -- Westley, The Princess Bride. This is the Battletech/Warhammer method and is possible in most other rule systems.

[Angelus_dead]

BTW, if a pit fiend spams blasphemy at a party, that party should look for a new DM. Also, that statement does not come from a possision of, the pit fiend should be a nice guy and not use blashpemy all the time. It comes from the pit fiend using the ability ONCE, and if no one dissappears back to their own plane(provided you are on his home plane) or the effects are minimal due to everyone passing their saves, he MIGHT think to use his other powers once or twice before spamming something that a METAGAMING pit fiend knows will work "eventually"
Uh, apparently you should check up on these rules a bit. You see, there is no saving throw against Blashphemy.

Unless the player character is (a) evil or (b) higher HD or (c) specifically buffed with immunity by a prepared caster, then being hit with Blashphemy will halt him for the whole round. Which means that whatever little Imp the Pit Fiend summoned beforehand can take his time and kill them all nice and slow. To be dazed for 1 round is not minimal if he can daze you again 1 round later.

It's not metagaming for the intelligence 26 Pit Fiend to know which of his magic abilities is the most powerful, and it's only natural for an evil monster to use his great power as much as he can. If the DM decides for some reason that the Pit Fiend will not use such a cheap tactic, that's fine and good... but it's changing the rules to have a better game.

[Angelus_dead]

DMs really can't cheat since they're not playing, but guiding a story.
That's a matter of semantics. It has already been explained that it's often a good idea for the DM to disobey some rules to make the game more fun, and most RPG books give him explicit permission to do that (sometimes called "Rule Zero").

However, whether or not a DM is "cheating" when he does this, he isn't strictly following the rules in the rest of the book, which means that the outcome of that game session cannot be held up as proof that the rules are themselves good. In fact, it means the opposite: because he needed to disobey a rule, it strongly suggests that the rule itself is somehow wrong.

[salmag]

It's just too sad that the devs are choosing to incorporate 4E into this MMO. I am like most of the others in this thread, not named A_D (or "master of masters" as some are saying), that dislikes 4E. I don't believe any of the top brass at Turbine even comes to these forums. That way, they would get a feel for what passionate people these posters are.

Please, Turbine, cease all those thoughts of 4E. WOTC and Hasbro will be releasing 4.5 Ed soon to correct it anyway. It just sucks that much. And yes I have played.

[Angelus_dead]

It's just too sad that the devs are choosing to incorporate 4E into this MMO.
They're not. Even if they wanted to, they can't. It's beyond their ability.


I am like most of the others in this thread, not named A_D (or "master of masters" as some are saying), that dislikes 4E.
Maybe you should pay more attention to what I actually wrote, instead of the numerous non-funny and non-permitted jokes made against me.

[Raithe]

Absolutely not. The idea that "wizards are more powerful than a fighter of the same level" is self contradictory, because the word "level" is defined in game-terms to mean "amount of power".


In game terms the word "level" actually means an iteration of power or difficulty increase. I'm sure you are aware that the XP values for level increases were at one time not uniform, and if I recall correctly Wizards took longer to level than most other classes, at least in the later stages. I'm sure that the mechanic (and yes, I know it was flawed design) was somewhat based on the idea that characters of the same level did not necessarily possess the same amount of power.

In a game trying to achieve "verisimilitude," having well-balanced power levels among characters would not be a priority.

[salmag]

They're not. Even if they wanted to, they can't. It's beyond their ability.


Maybe you should pay more attention to what I actually wrote, instead of the numerous non-funny and non-permitted jokes made against me.

I did read every post in this thread, and I agree with just about EVERY other poster not named A_D. 4E blows chunks.

And they are incorporating what they deem worthwile. I think the quote goes something like... we are looking at 4E blah, blah, blah, and will be using those rules that fit blah, blah, blah... Eventually, (re-read this word A_D), they will incorporate more and more 4E rules into this MMO. Especially since WOTC and Hasbro will not be releasing any more supporting material for 3.5 ed.

[QuantumFX]

DDO does not count. DDO is NOT DND. in DND i can make a paladin that is BETTER than a fighter or barbarian against a pit fiend, as i am immune to their fear aura, and have better saving throws against their abilities.

We were talking about PNP Not DDO.

Like i said, you are STUCK IN AN MMO FRAME OF MIND.

You really, really need to go back and read what A_D actual wrote rather than reading the first and last words and filling it in with your imagination.

[Uska]

They're not. Even if they wanted to, they can't. It's beyond their ability.


Maybe you should pay more attention to what I actually wrote, instead of the numerous non-funny and non-permitted jokes made against me.

They have stated they are looking into moving closer to 4E which is a horrible idea

[sephiroth1084]

So far, scanning this thread, I haven't seen many people reply who have PLAYED 4E.Maybe I missed some of those.

Yeah, 4E kinda blows in the whole diversity and variety departments.Especially on paper. In practice, it's not quite so bad. Yes, everyone's abilities are drawn from a sort of generic template, but are then altered to fit the feel of the individual classes. On paper everyone looks the same, while in a combat, everyone performs differently.

The thing though, is that the extremes from 3.x were altered: the classes that were VERY different (non-magic users and mages) were brought closer both in terms of power level and how they function, while the classes that were very similar (melee classes and other melee classes) were pushed apart a bit. Also, characters' roles were more clearly and solidly defined (both good and bad).

I don't like 4E very much. I agree with many that it can get a bit dull; however, there ARE some positive aspects that, we can hope, will make it over into DDO without dragging all the **** with them. Things like everyone getting unique and reusable abilities, classes that can fulfill the role(s) they were designed for and/or envisioned filling (fighters, rangers and paladins in particular), mages had their power dialed back a lot (too much, I believe, though they don't need all that much reduction in ability in DDO due to other classes getting huge benefits), characters who are less dependent upon magic items (doubt this would translate well to an MMO), some far more interesting feats available to some characters.

I honestly cannot imagine DDO making a full conversion over to 4E, and I believe doing so will be death of DDO. As it stands, it has a dedicated, if small, audience and some new players who enjoy the differences between DDO and other MMOs, in particular, the depth of character creation, options in leveling and the combat system. 4E is designed contrary to that feeling.

TURBINE, DEVS, IF ANY OF YOU ARE READING THESE FORUMS PLEASE! PLEASE!! PLEASE!!! SIT DOWN AND PLAY A DOZEN SESSIONS OF 4E, AND GO BACK TO WIZARDS AND EXPLAIN TO THEM THAT MANY OF THE ELEMENTS WILL NOT TRANSLATE WELL AND WILL RUIN DDO.

Beseeching over. Consider yourselves besought.

[frugal_gourmet]

Bought a copy of the 4.0 handbook this week. About 1/2 way through. In a way, I'm impressed. In a way, I'm not.

*Balance* was obviously a very key issue for the designers. And the game seems well balanced. The way characters are advanced sort of reminds of a fusion of traditional D&D and a video game like Diablo. I'm a computer game developer, and I actually would recommend it to wanna-be video game designers to read. It is a well-designed game.

But yes, I cannot help but feel they sucked a lot of the soul out if it. Let's be honest with ourselves, D&D was never about balance. If that was your goal, you probably picked the wrong game to being with. D&D (I'm talking pen and paper here) has all sorts of game-breaking mechanics and awe-inspiring feats of power that can scare the living tar out of players (or DMs). The DM had to be a quick-thinking, very clever sort who was able to both threaten his players seriously, but simulatenously keep them on the upper end of the competitive curve and feature each and every character in his group no matter what build they chose. This game was the dungeon master's show. The books were tinderboxes to light your imagination, and as you a DM you always hoped you'd get those players who played the character were inspired from imagination and not pure metagamers. If you could not somehow sculpt your group into players like that while playing a great puppet master, the game broke down.

Does that mean 3.5 was a bad game? Is 4.0 a better game? It depends on what the term means to you. It's certainly a better *strategy* game. But is it going to be more fun? I have serious doubts so far. The jury's still out for me, though.

[Borror0]

They have stated they are looking into moving closer to 4E which is a horrible idea

It is not. 3.6 has strong points, but it failed in some area. 4th Edition does the same. Strong point, but fails in other areas.

If you cherry pick what you keep, what you get rid of. You'll come to a better game. Just don't take the worse of both system. that would be the bad idea.

[Shattergod]

Certain aspects of 4.0 strains credulity... like the rogue power that turns you invisible after you hit someone...

That doesn't even make any sense.

I could see having an ability that turned you invisible... but then why do you have to hit someone to do it? If it was a power tht made you invisible to that ne person... maybe... but it's blanket invisibility... doesn't make any sense.

[Borror0]

That doesn't even make any sense.

Dude! It's magic!! Don't look any further. It's a game called Dungeon & Dragons. You really want to use logic?

[Vordax]

Maybe you should pay more attention to what I actually wrote, instead of the numerous non-funny and non-permitted jokes made against me.

I don't think anyone reading this thread has really understood what you are saying. You haven't even said that you like 4e, all you have said basically is that the rules are more thought out and require a lot less "cheating" by the DM to work.

I like the 4e rules. It is a totally new version of D&D (this brings out the "fear of change" in people). I like the 3.5 rules too and will be playing both.

Vordax

[Borror0]

I think that what people hate most about 4th Edition is how they discarted all the good parts of 3.5.

Sure, 4th Edition has good parts but...

[sirgog]

I think that what people hate most about 4th Edition is how they discarted all the good parts of 3.5.

Sure, 4th Edition has good parts but...

So, so true.

If they'd taken the (small but significant number of) good things they made for 4.0 and got rid of only the bad stuff from 3.5, 4.0 could have rocked.

As it was, bleh.

[Geonis]

I can explain the whole reasoning behind 4.0 and how bad it is in 2 words.



3.5 Classic!!!!!

Coming Spring '09

:eek:

[Lorien_the_First_One]

Then again, your fighter is just two feats away from being able to resurrect his fallen comrades; try that under 3rd edition!.

That's the best argument I've head against 4th edition...Fighters raising the dead...I don't think so.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

Bought a copy of the 4.0 handbook this week. About 1/2 way through. In a way, I'm impressed. In a way, I'm not.

*Balance* was obviously a very key issue for the designers. And the game seems well balanced. The way characters are advanced sort of reminds of a fusion of traditional D&D and a video game like Diablo. I'm a computer game developer, and I actually would recommend it to wanna-be video game designers to read. It is a well-designed game.

But yes, I cannot help but feel they sucked a lot of the soul out if it. Let's be honest with ourselves, D&D was never about balance. If that was your goal, you probably picked the wrong game to being with. D&D (I'm talking pen and paper here) has all sorts of game-breaking mechanics and awe-inspiring feats of power that can scare the living tar out of players (or DMs). The DM had to be a quick-thinking, very clever sort who was able to both threaten his players seriously, but simulatenously keep them on the upper end of the competitive curve and feature each and every character in his group no matter what build they chose. This game was the dungeon master's show. The books were tinderboxes to light your imagination, and as you a DM you always hoped you'd get those players who played the character were inspired from imagination and not pure metagamers. If you could not somehow sculpt your group into players like that while playing a great puppet master, the game broke down.

Does that mean 3.5 was a bad game? Is 4.0 a better game? It depends on what the term means to you. It's certainly a better *strategy* game. But is it going to be more fun? I have serious doubts so far. The jury's still out for me, though.


I think you've capured my feelings on the subject quite well. The "game breaking" stuff was where the DM and players were at their best. Those were exciting moments. You think you have that high level mage down to nothing? Hey wait, where did she disappear to in the middle of YOUR turn? Seems she had a teleport spell set up with a contingency spell. As a DM thinking out those high level wizard to wizard battles was fun because you didn't really know who would win and had to be prepared for anything.

Class to class balance? Who cares. They are supposed to be different, that's the fun of it.

[vainangel]

I think 4.0 should have been a diffrent game all together. Packaged as DnD lite or something.

It is nothing like the previous versions and seems to be directed at people who have the reading skills of a 5th grader.

Also it shows the math skills of a 2nd grader.

A horrible addition to the proud legacy of DnD PnP...

I still have my 2.0 books. And only a few 3.0 [with the 3.5 updates]...I could even dig up my box sets of Advanced and Standard and still be more entertained.

[sephiroth1084]

I feel that 4.0 was a response to much of the feedback from people regarding 3.5. Many did not like that the fighter kinda sucked from the mid-levels on, and that the wizard became a god among men around the same time, limited only by the number of combats he encountered in a day. There were complaints about the melee classes not having options and casters having too many, about PC groups engaging in one or two fights and then resting for 8 hours to get their abilities back. Many (even here on DDO) did not like how out of hand all the bonuses that one could get to any action eventually rendered failure almost impossible in many respects (bonuses to hit, on skills, on saves).There were some who even complained that the rules were TOO attached to the flavor, and some things were difficult to extricate for a DM who wanted to create his own game world or flavor for something. Multiclassing was far too powerful, characters were too dependent upon magic items, clerics were too dull because no one likes playing a healbot.

If you read through the 3.5 forums with any kind of regularity, you'd run across topics that had issue with one aspect of 3.5 or another repeatedly. Now that 4.0 is out, if you look closely at how the rules function, how classes and skills and feats and magic items are designed, I think you'll see an underlying motivation to FIX 3.5. I think this is part of the problem with the new system. It looks like they made such a strong attempt to fix the old that they missed what was so good about it.

DDO has a unique opportunity to merge the 2 systems, taking the best parts of each. That COULD make for a better game. I'm doubtful, though, for two reasons. First, I'm not sure that Turbine will be able to accurately judge which points are worth keeping and which discarding or that WotC will give them that leeway. And second, it seems to me that so many of the good things that could be taken out of 4.0 would not work well in DDO. How is one supposed to use an ability that targets an enemy and then targets an ally during a real time fight? Or an ability that targets selected numbers of enemies or allies? Sure, they could change the abilities the same way they changed Slow (from a targeted spell with multiple targets, to an AoE), but that will likely upset the balance of many of the rules.

[Arjen]

Maybe you should pay more attention to what I actually wrote, instead of the numerous non-funny and non-permitted jokes made against me.

Seriously.

I'm not saying A_D isn't abrasive and could certainly be a heck of a lot less condescending overall, but my word, most of you are demonstrating some very poor reading comprehension. You guys are getting so worked up that you're failing to actually understand what he's getting at re: rules design vs. implementation. I know we're all passionate about the subject, but reading most of the replies to this thread has been rather embarrassing.

Discourse, let's have some!

[sipior]

That's the best argument I've head against 4th edition...Fighters raising the dead...I don't think so.

So the "argument" is: "It's different than I'm used to"? In 3rd edition, a fighter can take some cleric levels, and do the same thing. Here, the fighter sacrifices a few feats for similar capabilities. I mentioned this example to point out that 4th edition offers a great amount of flexibility in character creation. I've noticed that when one finds something that can be done in 3rd edition, but has no direct equivalent in 4th, the complaint is "There's no flexibility, all the characters are the same!" When one points out that, in fact, these things can be done (albeit expressed in a slightly different fashion) in 4th edition, and some aspects of character development are now *more* flexible than before, the argument is "But you can't do that in 3rd edition, so it doesn't make any sense!"

Again, play what you want, but it's probably best no to act as though your choice of game follows some sort of overarching logic regarding what is and isn't permissible in a fantasy setting. Those comprise a set of assumptions, which will obviously vary greatly between gamers.

Cheers,

M.

[sipior]

This is Wizards of the Coast - the same company that would recycle the same creature with new art work (somewhat), a new name, and a new border, remove the old version from the tournament scene, then sell the "pegasus 2.0" in the expansion. These aren't the craftsmen/ gamers who created the games like Battletech and D&D/ AD&D; these are corporate drones who either never played or maybe tried it once and quit when the other kids at school said "you play D&D - you're weird." What they do know are to market to the lowest common denominator, that hype sells in the short term, and to hire lawyers who can lock up a deal tight to chase out any competition.


Apologies for my lack of courtesy, but this is a remarkable display of ignorance. If you look at the names of the "craftsmen" working at TSR in the mid-nineties, you will see a large fraction of them plastered on the front covers of most of the 3rd and 4th edition products. I'm very sorry to hear that you got teased for playing D&D in school: have you considered talking to someone about your bad experiences and the defensiveness and paranoia they seem to have brought about?



This is why I hung on to my 1st & 2nd ed books, and assort other gaming odds-and-ends. Wizards saw money signs when TSR was floundering, made the grab, and now intend to apply their usual "quantity of product over quality of product" to the D&D label. Ironically, all these changes they're making? They were part and parcel of those editions - you just had to have either a few more rule books (Skills & Powers, various class hand books, etc) or grasp that as DM you have artistic license to change things as you wish as long as the rules are consistent and everyone has fun. Pity that they had to go shoot the games long-term survivability & reputation in the interest of making fast profits.

I'm not sure how the game's long-term survivability and reputation are ensured by running WotC as a non-profit organisation, as you seem to suggest. Wizards *saved* D&D from oblivion back in 1997, and it seems like poor manners to complain that they didn't do so pro bono. I mean, heaven forfend that anyone make money by writing gaming products! Madness!

Cheers,

M.

[Raithe]

Again, play what you want, but it's probably best no to act as though your choice of game follows some sort of overarching logic regarding what is and isn't permissible in a fantasy setting. Those comprise a set of assumptions, which will obviously vary greatly between gamers.


I get tired of these types of statements. Everyone always wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Just because it is a fantasy setting does not mean that you abandon all logic. There is an overarching logic regarding the functioning of the real world, and except for primitive mystifications and mythology that real-world logic remains intact in fantasy literature.

Giving a fighter/warrior class the ability to raise the dead does not line up with any well-defined mysticisms and most definitely defies real-world logic.

[sipior]

I get tired of these types of statements. Everyone always wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater.


Apologies, Raithe; of course it was not my intention to make you tired.



Just because it is a fantasy setting does not mean that you abandon all logic. There is an overarching logic regarding the functioning of the real world, and except for primitive mystifications and mythology that real-world logic remains intact in fantasy literature.

Giving a fighter/warrior class the ability to raise the dead does not line up with any well-defined mysticisms and most definitely defies real-world logic.

The above is an excellent specimen of the fine rhetorical art known as "begging the question". Of course, fighters already can raise the dead: they require a scroll of same, and a sufficient UMD score to make use of it. Clerics, of course, require a diamond of a certain value, and a minimum experience level.

But the more interesting question, to my mind, is why a fantasy setting should only hold itself to "primitive mystifications" that already exist. In a game that is centered around imagination, it strikes me as a bit odd to claim that no new fantasy archetypes can *ever* be created. *Everything* must descend from "well-defined mysticisms" or else it has no place in a fantasy world. This seems staid and boring to me, frankly. Also, if adhered to strictly, this rule would have prevented fantasy in the first place: those initial "well-defined mysticisms" came from somewhere! So, let's create a new one.

Cheers,

M.

[sephiroth1084]

So the "argument" is: "It's different than I'm used to"? In 3rd edition, a fighter can take some cleric levels, and do the same thing. Here, the fighter sacrifices a few feats for similar capabilities. I mentioned this example to point out that 4th edition offers a great amount of flexibility in character creation. I've noticed that when one finds something that can be done in 3rd edition, but has no direct equivalent in 4th, the complaint is "There's no flexibility, all the characters are the same!" When one points out that, in fact, these things can be done (albeit expressed in a slightly different fashion) in 4th edition, and some aspects of character development are now *more* flexible than before, the argument is "But you can't do that in 3rd edition, so it doesn't make any sense!"

Again, play what you want, but it's probably best no to act as though your choice of game follows some sort of overarching logic regarding what is and isn't permissible in a fantasy setting. Those comprise a set of assumptions, which will obviously vary greatly between gamers.

Cheers,

M.

The lack of flexibility, as I feel it, is that, in 3.5 a player could multiclass, more or less, into whatever he wanted or take a prestige class, and could mold the game to his imagined character concept, whatever it was. Some failings in 3.5 were that certain combos really didn't work well (wizard/fighter being the biggy), but there were ways to make almost anything you could imagine. Also, when adding things together, it was possible to get something that was greater than the sum of its parts.

In 4 E, none of the above is true. You are highly restricted when multiclassing, and are therefore highly restricted as to which character concepts you can reliably create. Additionally, even when multiclassing, all you gain is a single ability that gets used once per encounter. That is hardly character-defining, and really all it does is add a fairly minor additional option to a character, rather than making something MORE. Yeah, power creep and such were a problem in 3.5, but the CREATIVE aspect of the game outweighed almost any flaw in its design. This is absent from the new edition. Yeah, now a gish can be made, but that gish is just a fighter or wizard would can either cast 1 or 2 spells, or who can hit something hard once or twice each encounter. Hardly the gish dream.

[branmakmuffin]

I get tired of these types of statements. Everyone always wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Just because it is a fantasy setting does not mean that you abandon all logic. There is an overarching logic regarding the functioning of the real world, and except for primitive mystifications and mythology that real-world logic remains intact in fantasy literature.

Giving a fighter/warrior class the ability to raise the dead does not line up with any well-defined mysticisms and most definitely defies real-world logic.
Fantastic fictional entertainment, whether an RPG, a movie or a novel, has to be consistent with its own established logic. If a man flies, the setting needs a logical explanation which works according to the setting's rules, not the real world. That's what "willing suspension of disbelief" is all about. Your talk of "primitive mystifications and mythology [and] real-world logic [which] remains intact in fantasy literature" just means you need your fantasy literature to not stray too far from comfortable, real-world norms.

[ShaeNightbird]

Fantasy literature, and everything else, should stray as far away from so called Real World logic as possible. Then a quantum reality shift needs to occur, putting the real world out of a job.
Express your inner elf. :p :D

[Uska]

Fantasy literature, and everything else, should stray as far away from so called Real World logic as possible. Then a quantum reality shift needs to occur, putting the real world out of a job.
Express your inner elf. :p :D

Umm dnd should stay true to its self and thats were clerics raise the dead not fighters

[jmelanie7]

Sure, it's certainly true that a few classes are missing. The PHB II will be out in a few months, covering most of those, along with a few extra. Because each class gets its own set of powers, the space taken up with each class description is much larger than before. Not all of the core classes would fit in a reasonable-length PHB. Again, 3rd edition has been cranking stuff out for years now; it doesn't seem fair to expect 4th edition to compete on the size of game material and character options only a few months out of the gate.



I confess I'm not sure that I understand your point here. Surely your imagination is independent of the rule books that you use? Also, you mentioned DMs ability to adjust the game in response to the players...why would the DM suddenly be powerless to do so in a 4th edition game? They are the final arbiter, in any edition! (so sayeth the blessed Gygax :))

Cheers,

M.

You sure didnt get my point there. When I compare something, i compare it with its equivalent, I never talked about 3.5 supplements, if you take the three core books of 3.5 and compare them to 4E, 3.5 is by far the best of the 2 versions. And you missed my second point too, I was explaining why people saying 3.5 was way overpowered compared to what it should be was something about running the game, not the game mechanics. And yes, when i read an ability and it tells me that: "You run forward 5 feet then do a front flip and attack the creature before you land behind it". It does make my imagination USELESS!!

[sephiroth1084]

Fantastic fictional entertainment, whether an RPG, a movie or a novel, has to be consistent with its own established logic. If a man flies, the setting needs a logical explanation which works according to the setting's rules, not the real world. That's what "willing suspension of disbelief" is all about. Your talk of "primitive mystifications and mythology [and] real-world logic [which] remains intact in fantasy literature" just means you need your fantasy literature to not stray too far from comfortable, real-world norms.

Exactly.

Yet ANOTHER issue I have with 4 E, is that there is little consistency within the rules system. In 3.5, if there were a misprint, one could usually figure out what was meant to be written by comparing it against the rules as a whole, or other specific cases that were similar. If one wanted to create their own new rule/ability/feat/spell/etc... they could compare it to other, similar things and work from there...there was an internal consistency. In addition, much of the rules system was based on the flavor of the system or in reality, so if something didn't make logical sense, then it was usually apparent and could be altered accordingly.

In 4th edition, the rules are almost entirely separated from flavor (or an over-arching logic), so one cannot make corrections to misprints, weirdness or anything else, because there is no basis from which to do so.

As an example, there is an ability for one of the paladin Pragaon paths that says the paladin can heal an ally for 1d6 [ts] Wis modifier. This is obviously an error, since [ts] has no meaning in the system. But how can one correct this? Is it PLUS Wis? TIMES Wis? Under a 3.5 scheme of thought, one could look at the fact that few other abilities (if any) employ multiplication, and so rule that it is PLUS Wis. That doesn't work in this system, since each ability is different than the last.

Similarly, if, in 3.5 one found a spell or ability that was strictly worse than something of a lower level or with fewer requirements, they would be able to assume that an error was made and could sometimes correct it. In 4E there are several powers that are weaker versions of lower level powers in the same class. Why are these higher level? No one knows. And no one knows how to fix them (for reference, compare the Ranger level 3 and 1 powers Shadow Wasp Strike and Evasive Strike).

[sipior]

In 4 E, none of the above is true. You are highly restricted when multiclassing, and are therefore highly restricted as to which character concepts you can reliably create. Additionally, even when multiclassing, all you gain is a single ability that gets used once per encounter. That is hardly character-defining, and really all it does is add a fairly minor additional option to a character, rather than making something MORE. Yeah, power creep and such were a problem in 3.5, but the CREATIVE aspect of the game outweighed almost any flaw in its design. This is absent from the new edition. Yeah, now a gish can be made, but that gish is just a fighter or wizard would can either cast 1 or 2 spells, or who can hit something hard once or twice each encounter. Hardly the gish dream.

I believe you're mistaken about the extent of multiclassing: the first multiclasing feat gives you an encounter power, that's true, but paragon multiclassing allows you a much more comprehensive exchange of powers from the new class (in exchange for not taking a paragon path). You're right about the gish, although he does at least get powers from each class that are of comparable utility, plus access to an enormous volume of ritual spells. Before, a fighter-wizard was stuck with both mediocre attacks and mediocre spells for his level. Gone are the days when everybody and his brother picked up 2 levels of rogue, for example. Or 3 levels of paladin. There were some multiclassing choices in 3.5 that made you wonder "why the hell doesn't everybody do this?" :-)

Cheers,

M.

[sipior]

You sure didnt get my point there. When I compare something, i compare it with its equivalent, I never talked about 3.5 supplements, if you take the three core books of 3.5 and compare them to 4E, 3.5 is by far the best of the 2 versions. And you missed my second point too, I was explaining why people saying 3.5 was way overpowered compared to what it should be was something about running the game, not the game mechanics. And yes, when i read an ability and it tells me that: "You run forward 5 feet then do a front flip and attack the creature before you land behind it". It does make my imagination USELESS!!

I'm very sorry to have missed both of your points. In my defence, I can only say that I did the best that I could with the text that I had to work with.

I was also crushed to learn of the fragility of your imagination, and hope you will take ample steps to protect it in the harsh days to come. After all, if you read something in a book, it must be that way, and none other! That's why they wrote it down!

Cheers,

M.

[jmelanie7]

I'm very sorry to have missed both of your points. In my defence, I can only say that I did the best that I could with the text that I had to work with.

I was also crushed to learn of the fragility of your imagination, and hope you will take ample steps to protect it in the harsh days to come. After all, if you read something in a book, it must be that way, and none other! That's why they wrote it down!

Cheers,

M.

Its not the fragility of my imagtination, more about the importance of it in my life, in every aspect of it.

Let me give an example of what i meant. A musician playing only covers of other bands. It may be fun for him, but some musicians like to use their imagination to write new songs. I personally dont like having it all on the paper, describing exactly what i do. I prefer to imagine it myself, i do have ALOT of imagination and i like using it, not only when playing dnd, but in every aspect of my life. Again, I'm not telling you to not like 4E, I'm just explaining WHY I do not like it myself. We are all different, and maybe what makes my imagination stops functioning, motivates yours.

[Raithe]

But the more interesting question, to my mind, is why a fantasy setting should only hold itself to "primitive mystifications" that already exist. In a game that is centered around imagination, it strikes me as a bit odd to claim that no new fantasy archetypes can *ever* be created. *Everything* must descend from "well-defined mysticisms" or else it has no place in a fantasy world. This seems staid and boring to me, frankly. Also, if adhered to strictly, this rule would have prevented fantasy in the first place: those initial "well-defined mysticisms" came from somewhere! So, let's create a new one.


I'm not dead set against creating new mysticisms. I'm saying they should be well-defined before they are incorporated into game mechanics. Why is the fighter able to raise the dead, from what power does that ability come? What stories and mythology has erupted around ancient lifegiving heros? What taboos and provisos exist for the power? When and how can this power be transmitted or conferred, such as imbuing a scroll?

It seems to always boil down to the divide between those of us interested in the roleplaying part of the game, and those of us interested solely in game balance and execution.

[Angelus_dead]

I'm not dead set against creating new mysticisms. I'm saying they should be well-defined before they are incorporated into game mechanics. Why is the fighter able to raise the dead, from what power does that ability come? What stories and mythology has erupted around ancient lifegiving heros? What taboos and provisos exist for the power?
For the record, in mythology a resurrection is the domain of fighters or deities, never clerics.

[Vordax]

Umm dnd should stay true to its self and thats were clerics raise the dead not fighters

Then make sure all you non-cleric (DDO) characters throw away all the rez-clickies, and all your UMD characters toss out their raise dead scrolls.

Vordax

[sipior]

I'm not dead set against creating new mysticisms. I'm saying they should be well-defined before they are incorporated into game mechanics. Why is the fighter able to raise the dead, from what power does that ability come? What stories and mythology has erupted around ancient lifegiving heros? What taboos and provisos exist for the power? When and how can this power be transmitted or conferred, such as imbuing a scroll?


Those are very good questions, and I would be very interested to see your answers, replacing "fighter" with "cleric". No mythological examples spring immediately to my mind.

Cheers,

M.

[Raithe]

For the record, in mythology a resurrection is the domain of fighters or deities, never clerics.

Well then it's a good thing that the D&D cleric is portrayed more as a zeolot fighter who can summon the aid of a deity, rather than a bookworm missionary-preacher.

I'm sure there is sufficient explanation in the 4.0 rulebooks to explain the fighter's power in a mythological sense. My objections are really focused on the reverse engineering of mystical powers, and the rationalizing of mystical powers as "not needing any logic."

[Uska]

Then make sure all you non-cleric (DDO) characters throw away all the rez-clickies, and all your UMD characters toss out their raise dead scrolls.

Vordax

I dont have any rez clickies thank you and rogues(theives) using scrolls is as old as 1st ed dnd thank you so it works fine there

[Raithe]

Those are very good questions, and I would be very interested to see your answers, replacing "fighter" with "cleric". No mythological examples spring immediately to my mind.


The New Testament of the Bible would be the one that springs to my mind. Whether or not anyone considers it "mythology" is not really relevant.

The ability to raise the dead is not necessarily the best example, and I really have no idea how many powers in 4.0 were reverse engineered or rationalized as "not needing logic," if any were at all. The concepts I found objectionable were brought up as arguments in this thread, and may not even really exist in the D&D literature.

[noinfo]

It's not a matter of opinion- there are testable facts that you are simply stating wrong. In addition, your various statements suggest a high degree of ignorance as to what the D&D 4th edition rules even are, and also to the problems with the 3rd edition rules, which are numerous and well-documented.

Simple test: Have you READ the 4th edition rules?

I have and I want my money back.

While there are many out there who have played longer than me 20+ years or so, I've gone through all editions and this new one is like a kiddy game.

I probably offend almost everyone here by saying that even 3rd edtion while offering some good with multi classing and tiding up things fell apart with all the garbage addional classes that 2nd edition managed to do away with and stream lined it (at least initially) prestige classes were even worse. There would have been nothing you could not have built with feats anyway.

4th eddtion will have its supports, would say mostly newer players I would think, but for me I would rather almost anything else.

[sipior]

The New Testament of the Bible would be the one that springs to my mind. Whether or not anyone considers it "mythology" is not really relevant.

The ability to raise the dead is not necessarily the best example, and I really have no idea how many powers in 4.0 were reverse engineered or rationalized as "not needing logic," if any were at all. The concepts I found objectionable were brought up as arguments in this thread, and may not even really exist in the D&D literature.

Sure, that example had naturally occurred to me as well, but I wasn't prepared to argue that Jesus was just a cleric ;-)

Cheers,

M.

[Montrose]

Background:
Started playing D&D in the late 80's with the core set. Switched to 2nd edition and kept playing through college, then stopped right around the time 3rd edition came out.

Situation:
Recently saw 4th edition and got together with some friends who have been playing 3.5 for awhile to try it out.

Reaction:
Blah. I was not impressed.

Problem 1:
The character creation process seemed very rail-roaded to me. I wanted to be a high intelligence, low wisdom rogue/wizard. Very smart, but also very impulsive. Used magic to supplement their rogue skills. Looking through the book, there was pretty much no way to create this character. I could "multi-class", kinda, but overall my character would be extremely gimp. (You could argue that the character would be gimp anyway since it's not a combat monster, but whatever).

Problem 2:
Having a high intelligence as any character other than a wizard is a complete waste. I don't have the book in front of me (on the shelf behind me, too lazy to get it) but intelligence is only used in one or two skills. Arcana and... umm.. history maybe. You don't need int for saving throws or initiative if you have a decent dexterity, so INT is the new CHA. Dump it.

Problem 3:
The game seemed incredibly combat-focused. When I was a DM there was certainly combat in my games, but it was maybe 25% of the game experience. The other 75% was exploration, traps, puzzles, NPCs, political intrigue, etc. Looking at the new system, most of the book seems geared towards attacking stuff. Characters don't even get any non-combat powers until level 2. I guess level 1 is entirely hack-and-slash... Wizards non-combat spells are extremely limited. So much for solving a problem with creativity, go find a sword and kill something.

There are "rituals" that take the place of some of these powers, but they are fairly prohibitively expensive to cast for 1-3 level characters. A starting wizard has basically no money starting off after buying their spellbook (50 gp, half their starting cash).

There are things that I liked, however I'm running outta time. Gotta run for now, will follow up with the good later. Short synopsis of the good: Wizards don't cast 1 spell in a day then turn into tag-alongs. :-)

[Vordax]

I dont have any rez clickies thank you and rogues(theives) using scrolls is as old as 1st ed dnd thank you so it works fine there

Hmm... your original statement said it was for clerics to do... now its ok for rogues too. Is it ok for other UMD skilled characters? Like a bard? (or maybe a fighter?)

Vordax

[Uska]

Hmm... your original statement said it was for clerics to do... now its ok for rogues too. Is it ok for other UMD skilled characters? Like a bard? (or maybe a fighter?)

Vordax

you make no sense whatsoever so I dont want to listen to arguementive people and thats all you want to do in fact I think you trying to provoke me into say something to get me into trouble

[Uska]

Hmm... your original statement said it was for clerics to do... now its ok for rogues too. Is it ok for other UMD skilled characters? Like a bard? (or maybe a fighter?)

Vordax

and thats not what I said I said dnd should stay true to its roots we arent talking about ddo and in dnd a fighter never can get much umd and has to multiclass to do it anyways. Never really liked 3.0-3.5 but at least it was in the spirit of dnd which 4E doestn seem to be.

[DoctorWhofan]

...I remember PnP'ing a few years ago. We had a rules lawyer in our group and we spent more time checking and re-checking the books than actual play. Finally, we did a game that we said to use only offical 3.5 D&D books, not the open licence stuff. So we rolled up characters and played. It was easier to prove our points to the lawyer with alot less books but we stayed (including the DM) within the rules but used our imagination. The result, he got so fustrated, he stomped off at every session.


He would always say: "Rules are important and they should be followed EXACTLY"

But, when we followed the rules but applied imagination to them, he got mad.

Hoisted by his own Pitard.

Ironically, at the same time, he was a big WoW player. We let he try out DDO on our account, he got fustrated and mad, saying this isn't D&D. THis is stupid and walked away. We asked if it was the rules for D&D were bent for the game and that bothered him, he said No. He said it was because there was to much variations in the character creation and gameplay to be useful.

Huh? Remember, this was level cap 10 only four enhancement world.

This from a man who MEMORIZED every official 3.5 D&D book. We finally concluded that he liked to be in control of every situation and always be right. Hence the memorization and the fact he didin't understand why my cleric, with no offensive spells to speak of (I had inflict light and summon to choose from) not only out killed him, but out survived him. He refused to listen to our advice (had been playing for two months) totally conveinced that the game had it out for him.

Just like that PnP game did.

Why the story? Well, after reading alot of the thread, I have come to the conclusion that A_D is a rules lawyer. He sounds like ours, to the point of using large words and not listening to anyone else. He (like our friend) feels he needs to "help" everyone to placed back on the straight and narrow, and if anyone who varies in any direction is WRONG. And if they do not listen, then he will at least out shout them down so everyone else can see how brilliant he is at the end.

A_D, if I am right, it isn't working.

A_D, everyone has their own logical reasons why they did not like 4.0. Mine, I even quoted (rather my hubby did) the reasons RIGHT OUT OF THE NEW PG on the poll thread. I cannot do that now cuz we used it to start a BBQ a couple of weeks ago. Regardless, and I know this may be falling on deaf ears, because we don't like it, doesn't mean we haven't read it, or have it memorized as you seem to have (why memorize something you dislike?) and getting nasty and "Shouting" and "insulting" isn't helping your cause.

Ironically, some people have stood in its defense without starting a screaming match. I don't agree with them, but I respect them for being courtious. You are NOT one of them. Everything you have stated, in this thread and many others, feels very condensending, especially by the responses people have thrown back at you. The way you place words into a post has a feeling of "I better than thou" Newpapers write to 7th grade comperhesion, and they are read everyday, giving out clear and simple discriptors to get their idea accross without making their audience feel stupid and defensive, you might wanna use a similar technique here. If you care.

Regardless, A_D, 4.0 is dumb, but easier to control, I suppose than any of the previous editions. 3.5, with its mountains of books, seems limiting, but using the rules, I could do variations of anything. Everyone had a role to fill, and where there were holes, people adapted and changed themselves and goals to fill them. Just like RL. While I know I will not conveince you that you are wrong, treating us like idiots isn't helping.

IMHO

[branmakmuffin]

I'm not dead set against creating new mysticisms. I'm saying they should be well-defined before they are incorporated into game mechanics.
Why can't a game create a whole new "mysticism?" M.A.R. Barker used Empire of the Petal Throne, an RPG, as the setting for his new "mysticism," whereas Tolkien used a novel for his. Greg Stafford made a board game with his new "mysticism" (which became the basis for the original Runequest RPG).


Why is the fighter able to raise the dead, from what power does that ability come?
Now that is a question that has to be answered, and not with "because the rules say so."


It seems to always boil down to the divide between those of us interested in the roleplaying part of the game, and those of us interested solely in game balance and execution.
I agree, if you mean that arbitrary rules put in simply for game balance are bad. Such rules indicate a distinct lack of design elegance (as do charts and tables; the fewer charts and tables, the better).


I dont have any rez clickies thank you and rogues(theives) using scrolls is as old as 1st ed dnd thank you so it works fine there
I haven't seen 4e yet, but your opinion seems to be "as long as it doesn't stray too far from my notions of 1e, I'm comfortable."

[Grond]

you make no sense whatsoever so I dont want to listen to arguementive people and thats all you want to do in fact I think you trying to provoke me into say something to get me into trouble

He already has! You've given everything away! We know where the poison is! What in the world can that be?!

[Uska]

Why can't a game create a whole new "mysticism?" M.A.R. Barker used Empire of the Petal Throne, an RPG, as the setting for his new "mysticism," whereas Tolkien used a novel for his. Greg Stafford made a board game with his new "mysticism" (which became the basis for the original Runequest RPG).


Now that is a question that has to be answered, and not with "because the rules say so."


I agree, if you mean that arbitrary rules put in simply for game balance are bad. Such rules indicate a distinct lack of design elegance (as do charts and tables; the fewer charts and tables, the better).


I haven't seen 4e yet, but your opinion seems to be "as long as it doesn't stray too far from my notions of 1e, I'm comfortable."

I prefer 1e but would play 3.0-3.5 its still dnd but 4E isnt a beast I can really is dnd and even most people who like the busted thing would say its almost completely new game from 1-0-3.5

[exdemon]

I have to say I wanted to like 4.0. I was all excited with the new aspect of being able to have a virtual tabletop since often my group has a hard time getting together. Then I found out that skills are all but non existent. Costomiztion is out the window. Many of the classes I love to play aren't there yet, they ruined Halflings and only gave them a +2 to cha to make up for it. They added a bunch of annoying at will etc powers, (the whole reason I don't play a spell caster is I hate having to remember all that ****) and they took away crossclassing. basicly not one of my 3.0 or 3.5 characters can ever exist in 4.0.

And the races are a joke. 3 different elf like races (not sub races actual races). Only in Tolkien do you need that many elves. No gnomes. halflings got ruined. (why do they hate the little guys). And is it just me or is it like the world went stupid? what do adventures hunt and kill? Dragons and demons. What are two of the accepted common races? decendents of dragons and demons. ***? and mean while the little gnomes are looked at with prejudice? Not fair I tell ya.

Sorry gang is playing 4.0 today. I tried really hard to make a character just cant seem to bring my self to read the 5 pages of each classes info just to make a freaking cookie cutter character with no flavor who is just like everyone eles who sucks. I told them someone was gonna have to make mine for me cause that much time and effort and reading wasn't worth it if the character is just a photocopy.

Needless to say I might play 4.0 as long as someone else makes the character but I'll never make a character for it or run it.

I'll happily stick with 3.5 and the ebberon setting. At least that way all the characters aren't clones

[Uska]

He already has! You've given everything away! We know where the poison is! What in the world can that be?!

Umm what

[Angelus_dead]

A_D, everyone has their own logical reasons why they did not like 4.0. Mine, I even quoted (rather my hubby did) the reasons RIGHT OUT OF THE NEW PG on the poll thread. I cannot do that now cuz we used it to start a BBQ a couple of weeks ago. Regardless, and I know this may be falling on deaf ears, because we don't like it, doesn't mean we haven't read it, or have it memorized as you seem to have (why memorize something you dislike?) and getting nasty and "Shouting" and "insulting" isn't helping your cause.
It would amuse me if you could paste an example of where I "shouted" something or "insulted" someone. (Or even where I appeared to have memorized the 4e rules)

[toughguyjoe]

First, Angelus_dead doesn't yell or even assume facts. you can only see by his posts that he is a calm and curteous giver of information. Also, that information is right. always. forever. amen.

Now, enough bashing that stooge.

The problem i have with 4th edition DND, in my eyes, and i know in advance that my oppinion is wrong, is that for years DND has been based on, imagination. They gave you a set of rules, said follow the ones that work for you, **** the ones that don't, and have fun. 4th edition seems to steamline things with more, simpler rules. Like everyone has said, they pulled fighters and wizards and clerics and everyone closer to the same level of power, so that jimmy in your group doesn't say "but i don't want to play the cleric"

All of this is fine. I agree with the idea that all classes should be desirable. Now the problem i have with 4th edition is that there was a system. There was a way of doing things. Fighters were hercules, or William Wallace, or one of the guys from 300 or a million other possibilities. Now in the interest of instant balance your archetypes were fleshed out for you, and from levels 1-10 the game seems like all parties would look the same from those levels on, and branch out afterwards. I'm not sure i want to "grind" past levels 1-10 every time i start a new campaign, since 1-10 always seems the same in party makeup and what everyone can do.

I know there will be source book after source book that provide a myriad of other options. Those options might even be able to overcome some of the limitations that are felt. however, it just feels too much like a video game. you choose your class, they give you a character, and off you go.

Why don't i just play a video game? Thats what i do now. i play DDO when i don't play pen and paper DND. If i have a DND game that works for my friends and I, why would i ask someone to change it?

I think why i defended 3.5 so vehemently, other than my distaste for holier than thou attitudes, is that when i look back at it, there are many differing things. There are monsters that can easily be defeated, though with a normal party, no powergaming no monty haul treasure, then that monster can shine and challenge a party. There are also monsters, like a Pit fiend. his at will abilities will destroy a anyone who is not in a "powergaming" campaign. I think thats the beauty of 3.5 you don't ignore the rules. you ignore the monsters you don't want to use because they are meant to give that powerful feel. maybe some people, obviously one, play in a place where the rules are written in stone and every spell is known to entire universe as well as the plague of any monster being on the encounter table. however, some of us play Dungeons and Dragons.

everyone should try it. 3.5 is a beautiful set of rules. Its like that chick you dated that one time. She wasn't the best looking, but she stuck around put up with your shortcomings and gave it up on the regular.

So why would you want to change to something that just looks like window dressing? those relationships are always too expensive, and always end up bad. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[Raithe]

Why can't a game create a whole new "mysticism?" M.A.R. Barker used Empire of the Petal Throne, an RPG, as the setting for his new "mysticism," whereas Tolkien used a novel for his. Greg Stafford made a board game with his new "mysticism" (which became the basis for the original Runequest RPG).


Actually Tolkien's works probably are most of the mythology that is used to extrapolate many of the powers in Dungeons & Dragons. I didn't really mean primitive in the same sense as "prehistoric." I meant that the root concepts of the mythologies had to be primitive and grow outwards like a tree, so that there is actually a lot of depth behind every myth, and different myths seem interconnected.

In contrast, an ability or power that is simply assigned randomly or without much mythology behind it usually seems as superficial as its creation - even if some excuse is created afterwards concerning why the ability exists. At that point, you might as well break out the machine guns and the light sabers.

[Angelus_dead]

First, Angelus_dead doesn't yell or even assume facts. you can only see by his posts that he is a calm and curteous giver of information. Also, that information is right. always. forever. amen.

Now, enough bashing that stooge.
By loading your posts with gratuitous juvenile insults, you ensure that nobody who matters will take you seriously. In fact, you make your position look weaker than if you hadn't posted at all.


maybe some people, obviously one, play in a place where the rules are written in stone and every spell is known to entire universe as well as the plague of any monster being on the encounter table. however, some of us play Dungeons and Dragons.
Do you know what "Oberoni" means?

[Grond]

Actually Tolkien's works probably are most of the mythology that is used to extrapolate many of the powers in Dungeons & Dragons. I didn't really mean primitive in the same sense as "prehistoric." I meant that the root concepts of the mythologies had to be primitive and grow outwards like a tree, so that there is actually a lot of depth behind every myth, and different myths seem interconnected.

In contrast, an ability or power that is simply assigned randomly or without much mythology behind it usually seems as superficial as its creation - even if some excuse is created afterwards concerning why the ability exists. At that point, you might as well break out the machine guns and the light sabers.


The magic system (and IOUN stones) are decidedly Vancian. But, yeah, Tolkien was what put epic fantasy on the map, for sure.

By the way... machineguns and lightsabres? Expedition to the Barrier Peaks anyone? :D

[Scipio]

It's not metagaming for the intelligence 26 Pit Fiend to know which of his magic abilities is the most powerful, and it's only natural for an evil monster to use his great power as much as he can. If the DM decides for some reason that the Pit Fiend will not use such a cheap tactic, that's fine and good... but it's changing the rules to have a better game.

But it is metagaming when you fail to read the suggested way to use the pit fiends combat abilities. When you look at its tactics round by round you will see it does 2 melee attacks and two different spells for every four rounds.

So if you were making a computer version that never cheated, as you say, a pit fiend wouldn't just spam the same thing over and over again. You can even look at DDO for this. Imagine if the mobs cast only the most useful spells all the time. They could spam just a few things, but it would be boring.

Now lets look at why monsters in DnD can use so many spells at will but shouldnt. I d say so DM's have in game reasons for using monsters in imaginative ways. How bout using the pit fiend as a unmoving threat, such as the pit fiend is stuck behind a semi-corrupted magical barrier that just allows its blasphemy through. Forcing the players to stay back while its minions free it.

[jmelanie7]

Hmm... your original statement said it was for clerics to do... now its ok for rogues too. Is it ok for other UMD skilled characters? Like a bard? (or maybe a fighter?)

Vordax

It is ok, and you know why? because your character invested some time in figuring out how it works. And I never saw a true resurection cliky in DnD by the way... The definition of a SKILL is something you practiced over and over again to attain a certain degree in mastering the said skill. So why, a character that spent as many hours trying to figure out how scrolls work out, couldnt be able, to some degree, to use those scrolls, or wands or whatever. They will NEVER be able to equal the cleric on raising people, they cannot cast the spell from a spell list.

[branmakmuffin]

In contrast, an ability or power that is simply assigned randomly or without much mythology behind it usually seems as superficial as its creation - even if some excuse is created afterwards concerning why the ability exists. At that point, you might as well break out the machine guns and the light sabers.
You're talking two different things. Yes, randomly assigned powers are lame. But if there's a good explanation for it within the context of the game, it doesn't need some real-world analog to make it believable.

[vainangel]

analog is for cavemen

it is a game
that does entail it is not real, nor should it rep anything real.
however it should make sense to some degree.

[Scarecrow]

Background: For the last 3 years, I've run an RPGA D&D system at the local library I work at. I do it as a library program, and we run twice a month, usually between 2-8 tables each slot. I've DM'd hundreds of games, and have worked with several different dm's with several different styles. I've seen all player types, from power gamers, new people, etc. We use RPGA because it accomadates almost all play style types, and has set rules as well as downloadable adventures.


Experince with 4th: When fourth came out, we were a game day event place. We ran many, many tables of 4th edition. I've also run and sat on several other games of 4th. Everything from Keep on the shadowfell to the RPGA downloadable adventures. So I'm no expert, but I do have a fair amount of xp with it. Here's some observations:

1. Easy to teach. Kids and teens that had trouble with 3.5, picked up 4th very quickly.

2. Newbie friendly. I ran this at a convention in LA this summer, and a group of adults who had never played DnD (of any sort) before had it down well by round two of combat.

3. Easier on the DM. The rules are more streamlined. A lot of the work is on the player to keep track of now. DM has more of a facilitating role, keeps things going.

4. Combat is longer. I know this is contray to what most are saying, but every combat encounter I've seen or run, goes a long time. This is due to creatures having more hp and players generally doing less (or more balanced) damage. Each persons turn generally goes faster (a matter of movement and deciding which combat action to use) but overall, each encounter takes much longer.

5. Character roles are very pronounced. There are several pros and cons to this. It's pretty clear what each class does, and their role in combat, etc. But there's not much else for them out of that. This helps newer players, keeps things clearer for all, but also lacks variety. Some of my older, more experienced players were bored after just a few games.

6. Tacitical. Yes, very much so. The game plays very much like a minis battle, movement, combat advantage, character roles are all very important in the world of the combat.

7. Lack of variety. Fewer classes, and to an extent, class variety. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard "I can't play a necromancer?" And many questions very similar to that one.


These are just a few observations, I have many more. But I will say that for a public setting, where many of my players will be strangers, this rule set is great so far. I've almost never had a 3.5 game where a rules questions didn't come up (grapple, wheater, suffocation, etc.) It's nice to have this ruleset, that is much more stress free.

But, I'm already seeing several players loose interest after a few games. One argument I hear is that those people are being impatient, and should wait for other books to come out. I agree with this a bit, but not completely. An example of this is in just about every 3.5 rpga game I run, I only need one book. The Players Handbook. That's it. All the other books are nice, but not necessary.

I don't feel that totally with 4.0. I think we're going to need the other books. I'm not saying that's bad or good, it's just the impression I'm getting. And with Players handbook II coming out in early january, I don't think I'm too far off the mark.

Thanks for listening all.

[Gornin]

Just a few things.

I have played 4e and even did some playtesting.

I am in the group that has found 4e to be lacking. They have, in my view, taken out the soul/guts, the "Je ne sais qua", out of DnD for expediency and ease. I agree that the abilities and classes don't have the consistancy with what we expected from DnD.

For those who say stop applying logic to a fantasy game, if there is no logic, or if you prefer, consistancy to how magic and other abilities function within a setting, it becomes confusing and people, NPC's included, would not know anything about their world. And rules are the logic to explain how things do work in a fantasy setting. Otherwise we would not know how a fireball works, who can use it when and how much damage it does, etc.

The optimizers/ power/ metagamers will always find a way to break a system, and the arguments are already starting on the WoTC forums. They are already making warlocks with 4 starting powers (5 if you are human) and arguing about it, amongst other things. I used to have one of these guys, always calling me on the rules, only to be proven wrong because I just applied the rules creatively. He hated that his wizard did not have every spell available and I stuck to the rules that he had to buy, find, beg or steal spells to add to his book. When he finally got the gate spell, he gated in the highest level Balor he could to fight for him. The Balor helped him out, then ate him, killed most of the rest of the party before being forced to flee, and now is setting up shop some where and gating in minions and harrassing the surviving party members to eliminate them before they can resurrect the rest of the party members and go after him. He quit because I used the rules properly. It was his fault that he summoned a creature above the HD that he could safely barter with and control. There is more to the story, but I won't bore you with it.

The fact is, is you take the RP factor out of the 3.5 rules, Wizards and other spellcasters do become uber. But what limits spellcasters are the spells available to memorize, and how many spells they can cast before having to rest and prepare again. Also enemy spell casters are just as intelligent and are more likely to be ruthless to achieve their goals, and so are likely to have counters to what the PC's can do. That is what the RP factor does. No breaking or fudging of the rules. In fact, I use very few house rules. Multiclassing is the same. You better have good RP reasons or I won't allow it. It keeps down the metagaming. The same with a few of the prestige classes.

That is not to say you can't do that with the 4e rules. There is definately a lot less work for the DM to do that now, but I don't mind the work. That was the the best part of the game. Using your imagination and be creative within the frame work of DnD universe, both as DM and player. Maybe that is why alot of us feel that the game has been dumbed down.


Anecdotally, no one in my area, including my 12 member group has gone over to 4e.

[branmakmuffin]

analog is for cavemen

it is a game
that does entail it is not real, nor should it rep anything real.
however it should make sense to some degree.
Not sure what you're trying to say, here.

Re-read old posts. You'll see comments that for anything fantastical to be believable, it has to make sense within its own logical framework. To paraphrase myself, if a man in an RPG flies, the answer cannot be only "because the rules say so."

[sephiroth1084]

I believe you're mistaken about the extent of multiclassing: the first multiclasing feat gives you an encounter power, that's true, but paragon multiclassing allows you a much more comprehensive exchange of powers from the new class (in exchange for not taking a paragon path). You're right about the gish, although he does at least get powers from each class that are of comparable utility, plus access to an enormous volume of ritual spells. Before, a fighter-wizard was stuck with both mediocre attacks and mediocre spells for his level. Gone are the days when everybody and his brother picked up 2 levels of rogue, for example. Or 3 levels of paladin. There were some multiclassing choices in 3.5 that made you wonder "why the hell doesn't everybody do this?" :-)

Cheers,

M.

The difference, though, was that while the fighter/wizard in 3.5 was not as good at spellcasting as a wizard, nor as good as at combat as a fight, he could combine these abilities to be better in some situations, or to form a sort of niche wherein he was something good and new. Usually, this took the form of a fighter who could self-buff. Sometimes it was a wizard who could swing a sword and take a few hits. And occasionally it was a wizard who, when he Shapechanged into a crazy beast, had the feats to make his new form combat-effective.

In 4E, yeah, your spells are useful, but you have only 4 of them. 1 of which can be used only once per day, 1 that can be used once per encounter, hardly character-defining, and paragon multi-classing is broken as it currently stands. You give up some powers and 3 special abilities for the same number of powers but no special abilities. So, even a paladin/fighter multiclass (for example), who sunk their entire 10 levels of paragon into the combo, cannot ever take the great feats that require a fighter-only ability (combat challenge). This holds true across all the classes. AND, Paragon classes grant a fairly small (usually) increase in power, whereas multiclassing, just adds more variety, which usually does not translate to more power in this game.

Yes, too much power increase will just lead back to the problems 3.5 had of insane power creep, but some degree of character betterment would be nice. Heck, from a flavor standpoint it makes little sense anyway. Here you have this warrior who has been practicing and using these skills for a while. Now, he has encountered a master of woodcraft who teaches him some woodskill. In 3.5, that warrior would now have some woodcraft, whereas in 4th, that warrior has had a partial lobotomy wherein a section of his brain containing some of his warrior prowess was removed and replaced with knowledge of woodland fighting.

This system makes sense only from a game balance perspective, and falls dramatically short of being flavorful (something much of the system also lacks) or especially interesting. While I have not played a lot of 4E, the change in multiclassing mentality that I have noticed is that there is no longer a question as to whether or not a character should multiclass--EVERY character should take the first multiclass feat UNLESS there is a skill they want that cannot be obtained through multiclassing. Everyone else should take the feat for the small benefit and extra skill, and then never touch another multiclass feat unless they REALLY want a particular ability or desperately want their character to exude some flavor despite the mechanics not supporting that well. In 3.5, however, the question on whether or not to multiclass has been a difficult one for many of the classes (not counting prestige classes, since they are represented by paragon and epic paths). Barbarians, bards, clerics, druids, monks, rogues and sorcerers all had to carefully weigh their options when thinking about multiclassing. Paladins and rangers less so, while for fighters the answer is a resounding YES!!!!! YOU WILL MULTICLASS MEATBAG!

In 3.5 there was a real gain and a real loss in most multiclassing, while in 4E there isn't a whole lot of either, except that you are losing a feat. This is more true since every class has some way to deal with a large group of enemies that are tightly bunched, even if some classes are a bit better at it than others, and most classes have some decent ranged attack they can take eventually, and some decent close/melee attack they can grab.

[noinfo]

It is ok, and you know why? because your character invested some time in figuring out how it works. And I never saw a true resurection cliky in DnD by the way... The definition of a SKILL is something you practiced over and over again to attain a certain degree in mastering the said skill. So why, a character that spent as many hours trying to figure out how scrolls work out, couldnt be able, to some degree, to use those scrolls, or wands or whatever. They will NEVER be able to equal the cleric on raising people, they cannot cast the spell from a spell list.

And it is the Cleric who invested power into the scroll from their deity to begin with. The rogue only worked out how to make it work.

[haunter]

Uh, apparently you should check up on these rules a bit. You see, there is no saving throw against Blashphemy.

Unless the player character is (a) evil or (b) higher HD or (c) specifically buffed with immunity by a prepared caster, then being hit with Blashphemy will halt him for the whole round. Which means that whatever little Imp the Pit Fiend summoned beforehand can take his time and kill them all nice and slow. To be dazed for 1 round is not minimal if he can daze you again 1 round later.

It's not metagaming for the intelligence 26 Pit Fiend to know which of his magic abilities is the most powerful, and it's only natural for an evil monster to use his great power as much as he can. If the DM decides for some reason that the Pit Fiend will not use such a cheap tactic, that's fine and good... but it's changing the rules to have a better game.

Creatures that have more HD than the caster level are immune to the effects of Blasphemy. The Pit Fiend has a caster level of 18 for its spell-like abilities. A 19th level or higher character (not a bad idea for going against a CR 20 creature) has nothing to worry about from a PF that spams it.

[Angelus_dead]

Creatures that have more HD than the caster level are immune to the effects of Blasphemy. The Pit Fiend has a caster level of 18 for its spell-like abilities. A 19th level or higher character (not a bad idea for going against a CR 20 creature) has nothing to worry about from a PF that spams it.
If you'd read the posts, you'd know we were specifically discussing characters whose HD was insufficient to be completely immune.

However, the fact that Blasphemy spam is unstoppable defeat to level 18 characters but totally harmless to level 19s is one of many ways that the D&D 3.5 magic system is broken.

[fefnir3284]

4.0 is garbage.

why? heres why.

weapons are now simple, military and superior? huh?

cant multi-class (I dont consider the weakness of being able to have a few other class abilies multi-classing), cant tri-class at all (bye-bye ranger/rogue/wizard, which I dearly loved)

rapier arent special at all. they arent high critting, but they are superior weapons.... huh?

crits dont to multiples, they do max damage.... why crit at all? I can roll max damage (with the exception of high crit weapons... which rapiers arent).

your character ends at level 30... what? yup, no longer going as long and having a rich history and role-playing style. they want you to get to 30, then start all over again. thats ****. I want to keep the same character. this is a video game now, its not dnd anymore. go from 1 to 30 and make another and another and another. forget that.

no PrC classes if obviously (caue of no true multi-classing).

all in all everything is so complicated, and generically bland it ceased being dnd. good job wizards :/

[Mapa]

10 pages of conflicting opinion. And people wonder why I play DnD only online and will not go near it again on paper.
If you want to RP, try FUDGE, if you want a skill based system try GURPS.

Enjoy your little flamewar.

[sipior]

10 pages of conflicting opinion. And people wonder why I play DnD only online and will not go near it again on paper.
If you want to RP, try FUDGE, if you want a skill based system try GURPS.

Enjoy your little flamewar.

Frankly, I think it's encouraging that people still feel passionate enough about D&D to argue extensively about it, however silly and faux-melodramatic. There's certainly nothing wrong with the other games you cite (I have a shelf full of GURPS books), although finding other players to agree or argue with can be problematic, depending upon where you live. But then, that wasn't the motivation behind your post. Proclaiming yourself above the fray (not that anyone asked), name-dropping a couple lesser-known "underground" things that you happen to like, and then ending with a terse parting shot with the implication that you would never indulge in such childish behaviour...this is an archetype at least as old as the Internet, surely!

By the way, friend Mapa, by posting to a flamewar, it becomes your flamewar too. Welcome aboard ;-)

Cheers,

M.

[sipior]

cant multi-class (I dont consider the weakness of being able to have a few other class abilies multi-classing), cant tri-class at all (bye-bye ranger/rogue/wizard, which I dearly loved)


Well, that's true, but depending upon which features you wanted from each class, you can easily replicate this concept in 4th edition. Again, you don't give a relative number of levels, but a Ranger with Wizard mutliclass would work, burning a couple feats to get the skills you want.



rapier arent special at all. they arent high critting, but they are superior weapons.... huh?


Base damage is up to 1d8 now, with a +3 proficiency bonus. The rapier is easily the best of the light blade category.



crits dont to multiples, they do max damage.... why crit at all? I can roll max damage (with the exception of high crit weapons... which rapiers arent).


Critting with a +5 weapon does max damage + 5d6 crit damage (or 5d8 or 5d12, depending upon the type of magical weapon). And there are additional on-crit effects for certain powerful weapons (hello, Holy Avengers).



your character ends at level 30... what? yup, no longer going as long and having a rich history and role-playing style. they want you to get to 30, then start all over again. thats ****. I want to keep the same character. this is a video game now, its not dnd anymore. go from 1 to 30 and make another and another and another. forget that.


You mean to say you've only played one character the entire time you've played D&D? That's...odd. Most campaigns ended somewhere between 14th and 20th level, in previous editions of the game. 3rd edition only provided rules up 20th, with the epic-level handbook coming out later. There's nothing preventing you from continuing past 30th level, by the way, you simply need to be creative enough to make up your own level-appropriate powers and rituals. Anyway, I always thought half the fun was starting a new campaign with a different character concept from 1st level.



no PrC classes if obviously (caue of no true multi-classing).


I think the idea is that there will be many more base classes to start from. These plus the paragon paths replace the notion of prestige classes quite well.



all in all everything is so complicated, and generically bland it ceased being dnd. good job wizards :/

Wait, it's too complicated now? Two pages ago, I thought the consensus was that it was too simplistic...

Cheers,

M.

[Shyver]

I will say this. I've read this entire thread from conception and though I've never played 4th edition and only dabbled in 3rd edition (child of 2nd edition) this thread has gotten me intrigued enough to want to purchase the 4th edition simply to read through it and see what the hubbub is all about.

Excellent discussion.

[Borror0]

[...] this thread has gotten me intrigued enough to want to purchase the 4th edition simply to read through it and see what the hubbub is all about.

Shyv, save you money and download a torrent.;)

[Rune_Darkfire]

you ensure that nobody who matters will take you seriously.

The battle between A_D and TGJ was epic. However, A_D finally loses by managing to put down the entire forum community in a single breath. That was extremely rude, sir, and if you read it again you will realize it.

Nevertheless, I look forward to more. /popcorn.


Do you know what "Oberoni" means?

You keep wanting to shoot the 3.5 rules to pieces, with one of your arguments being about how the Oberoni Fallacy needs to be applied to the 3.5 ruleset to have as much "fun" as you could with the 4E ruleset. Yet, your single claim to fame revolves around the poor balance in power-level of fighters vs. wizards at mid-to-high levels. Come up with say, oh, a dozen or so similar aspects of how the 4E ruleset is oh-so-superior to the 3.5 ruleset for actual discussion, instead of continual and incessant bickering over this one particular point, then that would be more fun than your train-wreck of posts (I quite enjoyed that remark, from whoever posted previously) harping about this one point against the world.

Please and thanks.

Cheers...

[Raithe]

You're talking two different things. Yes, randomly assigned powers are lame. But if there's a good explanation for it within the context of the game, it doesn't need some real-world analog to make it believable.

I was actually making the dual argument that powers either needed to make sense logically, in relation to real-world physics or the other rules of the game (some of which might be metaphysical/supernatural), or they needed a good mythological basis for their existence. Both concepts are mainly for the sake of roleplay, not game balance or execution.

I would add a caveat to all that, however. Say 4th edition decided to make dwarves small, thin creatures with wings that had super good dexterity and reflexes, but next to no constitution or endurance. Having good dexterity, lightning reflexes, and being able to fly would agree with the description of dwarves in the D&D literature, but it would actually contradict a whole lot of other mythology, and not by a little bit. It would make roleplaying a "dwarf" rather difficult and unwieldy.

You could say: "Well, that's not really a dwarf - that's a fairy. They just labelled it wrong."

I would counter: "Right, but how do we all know what a fairy is?"

[Lundivar]

I've played 4E & can only relate to it as a board game version of AD&D. Take out the "A"dvanced, and you get the simple ruleset of 4E, Could be called BD&D. (as in Basic Dungeon & Dragons). When I look at it from a board game perspective it's pretty good, things flow pretty well actually. Simple, simple system (full of errata now, but that another story...).

I'm still partial to the 2E rules, I can accept 3.5E rules as playable. 4E I just consider a Basic version, not the "Full Blown" AD&D. I'm playing a 4E campain right now and I can say it's fun, but not on the same scale as a "Real" AD&D game, but fun to try.

That's my 2 coppers on it.

[branmakmuffin]

Say 4th edition decided to make dwarves small, thin creatures with wings that had super good dexterity and reflexes, but next to no constitution or endurance. Having good dexterity, lightning reflexes, and being able to fly would agree with the description of dwarves in the D&D literature, but it would actually contradict a whole lot of other mythology, and not by a little bit. It would make roleplaying a "dwarf" rather difficult and unwieldy.

You could say: "Well, that's not really a dwarf - that's a fairy. They just labelled it wrong."

I would counter: "Right, but how do we all know what a fairy is?"
Since Dwarves and Fairies are totally mythical creatures, why is the "standard" (i.e., Nordic/Tolkienesque) version of "Dwarves" more acceptable than small, lithe, winged Fairy-like creatures? Is a winged horse with with a horn somehow breaking the rules because it has the attributes of a "standard" mythological Pegasus and unicorn? Why does an RPG have to match existing mythology? I don't dislike WF because magical, self-aware robots stray too far from my notions of acceptable mythology, I dislike them because they are too powerful to be player characters.

[redraider]

Haven't read the new ruleset, but when was the last time you truly stuck to the full ruleset anyway? Never in my case. The D&D rules have always been more guideline than rule.

It's DM and player creativity that creates a captivating campaign. The ruleset is simply a framework within which you build your world as DM.

Don't think there are enough magic items that matter? Add a few.

Think they nerfed casters and clerics? Blend a bit of 3.5 in.

Play the 4.0 for a while then the DM can talk to the players about suggested changes and tweak as needed.

Forget the angst. Live the fantasy.