DDO And PnP 4th Edition [Archive] - Page 2 - Dungeons & Dragons Online Forums

DireWolverine

11-28-2009, 04:25 PM

Note: I've never played 4.0, but in reading the PHB in a bookstore, more firstt thought was "awww, how cute, D & D for dummies" i know it's a rather simplistic reaction, but i do know I would never play in a campaign based on that rule set.

To each his own, I guess. I just keep finding more and more subtle, complex rules interactions, the more I look at the system. I've been running it since last February, and playing since just after it came out... and I like it. A lot. (And I've played/DM'd every edition since the blue-box edition, including a bi-weekly 3.0 game that went for well over two years. Well, except for that whole Basic/Expert/Master/Immortal thing... what a money-grab that was! :p )

The exception-based design means no more having to look up 65 pages of rules in the middle of combat. If a power breaks a basic rule (like 'A charge is a standard action in which you move up to your speed (minimum two squares), then make a melee basic attack or a bull rush'), it's clearly spelled out in the power. Instead of having to look in splat-book X for the reference, it'll be on the players' power card.

Having three different frequencies of two different types of powers makes for some interesting and subtle dynamics in combat. Tactical play is rewarded, because things like a +2 to hit from Combat Advantage can be the key to turning a pending defeat into a victory. Teamwork thus becomes more important, and everyone feels useful and needed in the party - instead of arcane casters feeling left out at lower levels, while melees feel left out at high levels, as with earlier editions.

Finally, I like it because the streamlined rules structure allows you to do the most important thing in any D&D game ever: have FUN! In 3.0/3.5, it was darn near impossible, because of all the annoying rules that got in the way... it is much easier to simply play the game in 4E. :)

Roziel_Longblade

11-28-2009, 04:45 PM

Xenus_Paradox

11-28-2009, 05:04 PM

Note: I've never played 4.0.

So your opinion on it is irrelevant. Thank you for wasting your time.

Soulken

11-28-2009, 05:15 PM

Can I borrow your crystal ball? I wanna see when Lesser and Greater Reincarnation are being released.

No you cant but I and many others would like in a nano second if it was like 4E its a good combat game but it feels nothing like dnd to me and many more and show me 4E here.

Soulken

11-28-2009, 05:18 PM

To each his own, I guess. I just keep finding more and more subtle, complex rules interactions, the more I look at the system. I've been running it since last February, and playing since just after it came out... and I like it. A lot. (And I've played/DM'd every edition since the blue-box edition, including a bi-weekly 3.0 game that went for well over two years. Well, except for that whole Basic/Expert/Master/Immortal thing... what a money-grab that was! :p )

The exception-based design means no more having to look up 65 pages of rules in the middle of combat. If a power breaks a basic rule (like 'A charge is a standard action in which you move up to your speed (minimum two squares), then make a melee basic attack or a bull rush'), it's clearly spelled out in the power. Instead of having to look in splat-book X for the reference, it'll be on the players' power card.

Having three different frequencies of two different types of powers makes for some interesting and subtle dynamics in combat. Tactical play is rewarded, because things like a +2 to hit from Combat Advantage can be the key to turning a pending defeat into a victory. Teamwork thus becomes more important, and everyone feels useful and needed in the party - instead of arcane casters feeling left out at lower levels, while melees feel left out at high levels, as with earlier editions.

Finally, I like it because the streamlined rules structure allows you to do the most important thing in any D&D game ever: have FUN! In 3.0/3.5, it was darn near impossible, because of all the annoying rules that got in the way... it is much easier to simply play the game in 4E. :)

Our gm tried to run 4E for once a week for a year only half of the starting 6 stayed more then 6 months those players who left all came back when we started playing 3.5 and then we had even more fun then ever playing HMB.

RictrasShard

11-28-2009, 07:13 PM

Note: I've never played 4.0, but in reading the PHB in a bookstore, my first thought was "awww, how cute, D & D for dummies" I know it's a rather simplistic reaction, but i do know I would never play in a campaign based on that rule set.

Then you have my sympathy for missing out on a lot of fun.

Xenus_Paradox

12-01-2009, 11:40 PM

I have a better idea, why don't you quit. That way i don't have to fret over wasted server space by the likes of you.

And i wont hold my breath over waiting for 4E mechanics, i haven't seen any yet, and they Devs have committed themselves to 3.5.

maybe you would like to quit over that?

I'm not the one threatening to quit here.

As to 4th edition, I said nothing about mechanics. I said elements. Currently:

Succubi are devils rather than demons. This is only true in PnP with 4th edition.
The purchased past life feats share their names with 4e multiclass feats.

Also? You might try not acting like a spoiled child. In my experience, this tends to cause people to take one seriously rather than pointing and laughing.

Soulken

12-02-2009, 12:32 AM

Then you have my sympathy for missing out on a lot of fun.

Tried it really wasnt fun for us others enjoy it I know but me I wont be playing it again.

Favis

12-02-2009, 12:46 AM

Disagree completely. It is my opinion that 4.0e is nothing more than a money-grab and has resulted in an abomination hardly recognizable as DnD.

/Agree

...
In all seriousness, DDO is a weird hybrid beast of 3.0/3.5 ideas + some 4.0 things here and there (or so it seems) + some completely original (and sometimes far from PnP rules) ideas.
...

It is.

Letrii

12-02-2009, 08:39 AM

4e is an evil abomination, if I had bought the books I would burn them.

timberhick

12-02-2009, 10:39 AM

4e is an evil abomination, if I had bought the books I would burn them.

Why is it an evil abomination?

DakFrost

12-02-2009, 11:41 AM

I really hope Atari develops a 4th Ed. MMO so that all the children can play that game and leave us "old timers" to enjoy our old fashioned 3rd edition game.

I am still angry about the $80 I spent on the box of 4th Ed. garbage that is now collecting dust in the garage. My friends and I lasted all of 1 month playing that horrible system of cloned characters.

Letrii

12-02-2009, 12:01 PM

Why is it an evil abomination?

Healing surges, lack of focus for characters, cookie cutter classes, forced retirement at 30, heavy handed tactics with artifacts, etc...

Shaamis

12-02-2009, 12:29 PM

Healing surges, lack of focus for characters, cookie cutter classes, forced retirement at 30, heavy handed tactics with artifacts, etc...

Sorry 4E is a different type of challenge for you, that you are not used to.

Unfortunately, WotC will not write any more material for previous versions, so any new campaign settings or material will be written for the latest edition, and you'll have to rely on home-brew campaigns, or third-party vendors, which isnt all bad, but not the same as a WotC supported edition in my mind.

I'm not a newb to D&D either, When 2nd edition came out, I spent my hard-earned allowance/lawn-mowing cash on the 2 book/1 binder 1st printing of 2.0, and felt cheated at the fact there were no barbarians, no assasins, no druids, no monks, no thief-acrobats, and no cavaliers. My friends and I put 2nd ed. away, and went back to 1st edition.

It took 2nd edition a while, but they came out with the complete series that filled in the cracks, and allowed us to play it.

The key point was we eventually warmed up to the new edition.

I'm sure everyone else will for the latest edition as well.

I play 4E now, and I love Rangers, Wardens, and Avengers.

If you don't know why, then you havent played 4E enough.

whysper

12-02-2009, 12:49 PM

Sorry 4E is a different type of challenge for you, that you are not used to.
:
If you don't know why, then you havent played 4E enough.

Yes, because as we have learned, it is impossible to not like something after having tried it. Seriously?

Krag

12-02-2009, 01:10 PM

Let's talk about real flaws.
For example, tell me at least one gimeped class in D&D 4ed? Some useless trash like Samurai, Swashbuckler, Warmage, Beguiler,...?

timberhick

12-02-2009, 01:11 PM

Yes, because as we have learned, it is impossible to not like something after having tried it. Seriously?

Depends on if you went in with an open mind or went in looking for reasons to hate something.

timberhick

12-02-2009, 01:16 PM

Healing surges, lack of focus for characters, cookie cutter classes, forced retirement at 30, heavy handed tactics with artifacts, etc...

What about healing surges? Is it that you have a finite amount of healing you can receive?

Lack of focus for characters? Meaning? That you can no longer dip into classes/PrCs?

Cookie Cutter? I haven't seen that personally, in fact I have seen more variety in class concepts than I ever did in earlier editions.

Forced retirement is, imo, a good thing. It allows you to tell new stories, instead of beating the same characters into the ground.

Personally I like the new rules with artifacts.

DakFrost

12-02-2009, 01:35 PM

RictrasShard

12-02-2009, 01:46 PM

Leader/Striker/Defender/Controller - 4 cookie cutter classes...wait! Their daily power have different names! FAIL!

A few pages ago, I showed how the classes do indeed play quite differently, using my party as an example.

Why try and replicate a computer game (WoW) when you can just play the computer game.

Do you mean the WoW pnp, which was made in 3.5?

WoTC shouldn't have ever called the 4th edition abortion D&D. Why not create a new game entirely and call it something else if this is what they wanted. It isn't D&D. It has its name, but not its spirit.

Actually, at least to my friends and I, 4E captures the spirit of first edition better than any other edition in at least the past ten years.

Montrose

12-02-2009, 01:56 PM

I'll get to Montrose later.

I don't recall ever seeing any response to the issues that I brought up.

foxx

12-02-2009, 02:01 PM

Some days ago i began to read the official books of PnP 4 edition. All the stuff (classes,races,feats,skills,etc) seems awesome. My opinion is that DDO should follow the updates of PnP as close as possible. I would like to hear some opinions about this transition in PnP and the consequences to DDO.

repeat this mantra to yourself.
this is not PnP,, this is not PnP,, this is not PnP.

GramercyRiff

12-02-2009, 02:08 PM

Leader/Striker/Defender/Controller - 4 cookie cutter classes...wait! Their daily power have different names! FAIL!

Why try and replicate a computer game (WoW) when you can just play the computer game.

WoTC shouldn't have ever called the 4th edition abortion D&D. Why not create a new game entirely and call it something else if this is what they wanted. It isn't D&D. It has its name, but not its spirit.

Your first sentence shows how little you know about 4E. Leader, Striker, Defender, and Controller are terms that define a class's role. While Striker is a bit ambiguous, and some Controllers don't control as well as others, the roles do work for the most part and they play differently from one another. Even within a role different classes play very differently. An Assault Swordmage is completely different from an Ardent Vow Paladin, yet they can both defend the party adequately. Even within the Swordmage class, the different feautures make all three types of Swordmages play differently. There's nothing cookie cutter about it.

I won't address the WoW bit because it's a Red Herring, whether intentional or not.

You just perceive that 4E lacks the spirit of DnD. I disagree. The spirit of DnD, at its core, is about narrative and roleplaying backed up by miniature skirmish battles. That's the template Gygax and Arneson used when they created the game years ago. This still exists and is encouraged in 4E, some just can't or won't see this.

Shaamis

12-02-2009, 02:12 PM

Yes, because as we have learned, it is impossible to not like something after having tried it. Seriously?

Negativity begets more negativity.

Look at it this way:

Like a challenge? Try to break 4th ed.

I have friends who refuse to play 4E not because it's a bad system, but because they can't find anything they consider "broken" in it. I have friends who regularly rape other Role playing game systems for "....this little rule in the back of the book here that say I can do this".
After they read 4E, they refuse to play because they can't find anything "broken" in it.

I have told them new rules have come out that let them really bend the rules like they like, but they still refuse to play, because in their mind, it's not "fun"

I look at it like this: Same game, but new set of rules. = new challenge.

whysper

12-02-2009, 02:28 PM

I have friends who refuse to play 4E not because it's a bad system, but because they can't find anything they consider "broken" in it.

...Find new friends?

Soulken

12-02-2009, 02:39 PM

Sorry 4E is a different type of challenge for you, that you are not used to.

Unfortunately, WotC will not write any more material for previous versions, so any new campaign settings or material will be written for the latest edition, and you'll have to rely on home-brew campaigns, or third-party vendors, which isnt all bad, but not the same as a WotC supported edition in my mind.

I'm not a newb to D&D either, When 2nd edition came out, I spent my hard-earned allowance/lawn-mowing cash on the 2 book/1 binder 1st printing of 2.0, and felt cheated at the fact there were no barbarians, no assasins, no druids, no monks, no thief-acrobats, and no cavaliers. My friends and I put 2nd ed. away, and went back to 1st edition.

It took 2nd edition a while, but they came out with the complete series that filled in the cracks, and allowed us to play it.

The key point was we eventually warmed up to the new edition.

I'm sure everyone else will for the latest edition as well.

I play 4E now, and I love Rangers, Wardens, and Avengers.

If you don't know why, then you havent played 4E enough.

Not all of us will grow to even mildly like 4E some of us had enough of WOTC for now the next time I play a dnd game of a version higher then 3.5(prefer 1st and 2nd editon) it will be a future editon that doesnt remind of 4E if at all. For now we play HMB and runequest. I dont say 4E is a terrible game but it just didtn feel right to me.

Soulken

12-02-2009, 02:43 PM

A few pages ago, I showed how the classes do indeed play quite differently, using my party as an example.

Do you mean the WoW pnp, which was made in 3.5?

Actually, at least to my friends and I, 4E captures the spirit of first edition better than any other edition in at least the past ten years.

I have to take exception to that last statement noone I know personaly feels that way even the people I know who like 4E, my friends who do like it admit if it wasnt for the name on it they might not even know it was dnd, but they like anyways we just dont play it together.

SquelchHU

12-02-2009, 02:45 PM

Let's talk about real flaws.
For example, tell me at least one gimeped class in D&D 4ed? Some useless trash like Samurai, Swashbuckler, Warmage, Beguiler,...?

1: You fail at life forever for labeling Beguiler in the useless pile. You're right about the others (assuming you mean the CW Samurai, and not the OA Samurai) but Beguilers? Do I REALLY need to break down why Beguilers are actually better than Wizards in some ways?

2: Warlock. Since there's nothing but the numbers to go by, anything with inferior numbers is gimped. The entire class is screwed accordingly. Or how about the Avenger? Paladin perhaps? There's another two that don't do much of anything. If you want to apply some standards, and you should the gimp list grows a lot longer. And that assumes you build them right. Put the wrong stats up or pick the wrong race, etc and the gimp list encompasses just about everything.

3: (this one is for shaamis, not you) Then your friends suck at finding broken stuff. Because you can absolutely shatter the system without even trying. What's that? You stacked on save penalty granting items and spam a level 1 power? You win every fight ever, because the enemy will never wake up from your Orbizard's Sleep to take any action. What's that? You obtained a mount and a bow and kited enemies? You win almost every fight ever (about 5% can actually shoot back) and you win the other 5% if you're good at shooting from mountback. And those are just the easiest ways. You want to talk about working to break it, how did they manage 3.5? You need a fair bit of lateral thinking to find comparable, I win automatically breaks, and those breaks are also more elaborate like 'Use Candle of Invocation to Gate in Efreeti, gain infinite Wishes' which is one of the simpler ones (being core only and all) but requires you to cross reference the DMG for the item, the PHB for the spell, the MM to find nice things to summon and notice abilities like grants Wishes instead of just using it to summon some random high CR creature, then back to the PHB to see what Wishes can do for you. Anyone that can manage that will have no trouble making 4th edition looking like the joke it is balance wise, and indeed the real challenge will be trying to find a way to make it playable at all. Playable defined as balanced enough to play, and enjoyable enough to play.

Shaamis

12-02-2009, 02:53 PM

...Find new friends?

back in the day (which was a tuesday if you didnt know :P) I used to gather with friends to play any number of role-playing games:

RoleMaster
SpaceMaster
Gurps
MERP
Rifts
Battletech (roleplaying and minis)
Aerotech
Robotech
Car Wars
AD&D (1st, 2nd, 2.5, and 3.0)
Palladium RPG
TMNT
Centurion (futuristic tank war game)
Champions
Villians and Vigilantes
Hero System
Mekton
Heavy Gear
...and others I cant remember

for years we would: 1)Buy a new RPG, read rules 2) make characters & plan on playing campaign 3)come back next week to play, and several of us re-wrote our characters with the same random stats we rolled the previous week, but the characters would be broken 4) play one adventure 5) next week start over again at #1

The only constant was we would read rules, break the game, and look for another "perfect" gaming system.

We always came back to D&D because everyone knew D&D, didnt have to educate them on the rules, we could skip to #3.

More rules is not better, if role-playing is your focus.

Xenus_Paradox

12-02-2009, 02:55 PM

1: You fail at life forever for labeling Beguiler in the useless pile. You're right about the others (assuming you mean the CW Samurai, and not the OA Samurai) but Beguilers? Do I REALLY need to break down why Beguilers are actually better than Wizards in some ways?

2: Warlock. Since there's nothing but the numbers to go by, anything with inferior numbers is gimped. The entire class is screwed accordingly. Or how about the Avenger? Paladin perhaps? There's another two that don't do much of anything. If you want to apply some standards, and you should the gimp list grows a lot longer. And that assumes you build them right. Put the wrong stats up or pick the wrong race, etc and the gimp list encompasses just about everything.

3: (this one is for shaamis, not you) Then your friends suck at finding broken stuff. Because you can absolutely shatter the system without even trying. What's that? You stacked on save penalty granting items and spam a level 1 power? You win every fight ever, because the enemy will never wake up from your Orbizard's Sleep to take any action. What's that? You obtained a mount and a bow and kited enemies? You win almost every fight ever (about 5% can actually shoot back) and you win the other 5% if you're good at shooting from mountback. And those are just the easiest ways. You want to talk about working to break it, how did they manage 3.5? You need a fair bit of lateral thinking to find comparable, I win automatically breaks, and those breaks are also more elaborate like 'Use Candle of Invocation to Gate in Efreeti, gain infinite Wishes' which is one of the simpler ones (being core only and all) but requires you to cross reference the DMG for the item, the PHB for the spell, the MM to find nice things to summon and notice abilities like grants Wishes instead of just using it to summon some random high CR creature, then back to the PHB to see what Wishes can do for you. Anyone that can manage that will have no trouble making 4th edition looking like the joke it is balance wise, and indeed the real challenge will be trying to find a way to make it playable at all. Playable defined as balanced enough to play, and enjoyable enough to play.

Orblocks have been errata'd. Almost every item that stacks a save penalty does so only on the first save against an effect. Additionally, all implements that give save penalties now do so only for powers cast through them.

Krag

12-02-2009, 03:07 PM

GramercyRiff

12-02-2009, 03:30 PM

1: You fail at life forever for labeling Beguiler in the useless pile. You're right about the others (assuming you mean the CW Samurai, and not the OA Samurai) but Beguilers? Do I REALLY need to break down why Beguilers are actually better than Wizards in some ways?

2: Warlock. Since there's nothing but the numbers to go by, anything with inferior numbers is gimped. The entire class is screwed accordingly. Or how about the Avenger? Paladin perhaps? There's another two that don't do much of anything. If you want to apply some standards, and you should the gimp list grows a lot longer. And that assumes you build them right. Put the wrong stats up or pick the wrong race, etc and the gimp list encompasses just about everything.

Beguilers are indeed quite good. Any class that can fill multiple roles/niches is powerful. Saying someone fails at life for not seeing or realizing this is a bit extreme. Warmages are terrible when compared to almost any other caster, but they are still better than most non casters, ToB classes excluded. Warmages start to become much better when you can add more spells to their list.

Warlocks may have once been the red headed step child in the beginning, but this is no longer the case. Warlocks are a bit harder to optimize, but with the options available now, it is decidedly easier. An Eladrin Warlock|Swordmage hybrid MC Fighter Rogue is a thing of beauty. It's a relatively complex build that can force catch-22's, deal good damage, and toss out a decent amount of control. Multi-class like that wasn't possible the last time you looked at 4E was it?

Avengers aren't as bad as they seem when you delve a bit deeper. The Oath is a powerful feature, so they were given subpar damaging powers. They still can pump out acceptable damage and decent novas, while being much tougher than other Strikers. Avenger mobility is quite good too. Paladins have improved dramactially since the PHB. Divine Sanction, Domains, and Divinities, as well as other feats worked wonders for them. It's amazing what more options can do for a class.

How is Candle of Invocation elaborate? It's one of the more obvious broken examples in 3.5. Giving access to Gate, a very powerful 9th level spell, to low level characters was a gross oversight. It's theoretical though, as it will never happen in an actual game, just as Pun Pun was never intended to be played in a game. It was an exercise in theoretical optimization. Pun Pun would be an elaborate example of imploding the game in upon itself.

Shaamis

12-02-2009, 03:46 PM

3: (this one is for Shaamis "The Kegtapper" Bloodfist, not you
) Then your friends suck at finding broken stuff. For record i was talkin about the initial 4E core rules. Because you can absolutely shatter the system without even trying. Which i told my friends later when optional books came out, but they chose not to even read them. What's that? You stacked on save penalty granting items and spam a level 1 power? You win every fight ever, because the enemy will never wake up from your Orbizard's Sleep to take any action. If you can find any group of items that can STACK, that provide more than a +3 total bonus, I agree, but 4E specifically limits stacking a LOT, hence limitations on what I would consider broken. What's that? You obtained a mount and a bow and kited enemies? You win almost every fight ever (about 5% can actually shoot back) and you win the other 5% if you're good at shooting from mount back. Of course equipment will give an edge in any system, I am talking pure core mechanics. And those are just the easiest ways. You want to talk about working to break it, how did they manage 3.5? The ways on making broken characters in 3.5 are well documented, the details don't matter. You need a fair bit of lateral thinking to find comparable, I win automatically breaks, and those breaks are also more elaborate like 'Use Candle of Invocation to Gate in Efreeti, gain infinite Wishes' which is one of the simpler ones (being core only and all) but requires you to cross reference the DMG for the item, the PHB for the spell, the MM to find nice things to summon and notice abilities like grants Wishes instead of just using it to summon some random high CR creature, then back to the PHB to see what Wishes can do for you. Anyone that can manage that will have no trouble making 4th edition looking like the joke it is balance wise, and indeed the real challenge will be trying to find a way to make it playable at all. Playable defined as balanced enough to play, and enjoyable enough to play.

I like the open ended ability A GM has to keep players who think they can break 4E from ruling the gaming table. The character classes that a GM can create, complete with abilities, and powers/level is as free as a bird, and the powers mobs can have are even more open-ended. With 3.5, monsters had to follow the defined core mechanics of the game, such as class HD, spell equivalents, and skill point totals. Some had unique powers that kinda broke the rules, but any monsters with those unique powers were labeled as "rulebreaking" abilities.

In 4E, ALL monsters pretty much have free reign on what powers and abilities they have, so there is not one "rule breaking ability" they ALL have unique, "per monster" defined powers.

Sure it's not fair, but when did the DM (who might be a player next week in the same gaming group) HAVE to be fair? The golden rule was make a fun and challenging adventure.

Back in 3.5, if you read every sourcebook, and could munch on all of the crunchy bits better than your friends who might be the DM next week, you could mop the floor with their encounters, effectively "breaking" the adventure.

Whats so fun with that?

In 4E, the DM can either use monsters in adventures that are pre-generated in the published books, or make his own, borrowing and swapping as he sees fit. Some of those powers might or might not be the same as the players, presenting a real unknown challenge

The uncertainty IS the fun.

When you know all of the rules, the game becomes predictable, and boring.

that's why I like 4E

whysper

12-02-2009, 03:54 PM

Back in 3.5, if you read every sourcebook, and could munch on all of the crunchy bits better than your friends who might be the DM next week, you could mop the floor with their encounters, effectively "breaking" the adventure.

Everyone does not treat a gaming session as some kind of a free-for-all cage fight in which someone must win and everyone else must lose. I am glad you and your exploit-happy friends have found 4E to be challenging, though.

Shaamis

12-02-2009, 04:18 PM

Everyone does not treat a gaming session as some kind of a free-for-all cage fight in which someone must win and everyone else must lose. I am glad you and your exploit-happy friends have found 4E to be challenging, though.

You can avoid them as much as you want, but eventually they will find you, whether it's on an MMO, or at a table. I play in national campaigns, and play with all kinds of people (RPGA), and I see a LOT of ideas on how to use 4E to its fullest.

Wouldn't you rather just play a gaming system that didnt foster rule twinking?

And if you have been reading my posts, you would see that I am NOT playing 4E with those friends because they'd much rather not play it.

I play 4E with those who like to role-play more than rule-play.

Krag

12-02-2009, 06:12 PM

2: Warlock. Since there's nothing but the numbers to go by, anything with inferior numbers is gimped. The entire class is screwed accordingly. Or how about the Avenger? Paladin perhaps? There's another two that don't do much of anything. If you want to apply some standards, and you should the gimp list grows a lot longer. And that assumes you build them right. Put the wrong stats up or pick the wrong race, etc and the gimp list encompasses just about everything.

At first I thought you were talking about 3.5 Warlocks. Yes, they were gimped due to the lack of good prestige classes. Calling 4ed Warlocks gimped... you got to be kidding! Don't you enjoy raping your enemies with tentacles? Warlocks are exellent at both croud control and dispatching single targets. There are also some cool non-conventional paths for them like Eladrin Swordmage Hybrid/MC that can teleport like 10+ times per round damaging and slowing all enemies nearby each time he does so. Paladin MC/Hybrid is an interesting option too: -10 to hit you and -6 to hit your partymembers is freaking awesome.

Avengers = crit madness. They roll TWICE on every attack. Combine that with increased critical range and you have an easy button.

Paladins? Do they even need an advocate after DP was released?

SquelchHU

12-02-2009, 06:42 PM

Don't bother. Limited spell list = autofail. Although skillpoints are worth something at low-levels.

Limited as in 'automatically know everything on it, including spells added by other classes'? Because that's the main thing going for them. Only other class I know of that gets that is the Warmage, but they suck.

Beguilers are indeed quite good. Any class that can fill multiple roles/niches is powerful. Saying someone fails at life for not seeing or realizing this is a bit extreme. Warmages are terrible when compared to almost any other caster, but they are still better than most non casters, ToB classes excluded. Warmages start to become much better when you can add more spells to their list.

Labeling Beguilers in the same pile as NPC classes is also a bit extreme. I try to match the other person in kind.

How is Candle of Invocation elaborate? It's one of the more obvious broken examples in 3.5. Giving access to Gate, a very powerful 9th level spell, to low level characters was a gross oversight. It's theoretical though, as it will never happen in an actual game, just as Pun Pun was never intended to be played in a game. It was an exercise in theoretical optimization. Pun Pun would be an elaborate example of imploding the game in upon itself.

Most people would 1: Not notice the Candle (this thread demonstrated this). 2: Not notice the Gate ability of the Candle. 3: Use the Gate ability to summon Solars or something to wreck face instead of using it for unlimited Wish spells. I called it more elaborate because there are multiple steps and cross referencing involved, the chances of even an optimizer finding it on their own are somewhat low. Whereas things like Orbizards and mounted archers are easy enough to just stumble onto.

Anyways, sounds like another person who is having a great deal of fun not actually playing 4th edition. Now as soon as he graduates from not actually playing it to really not playing it, we're good.

3.5 Warlocks are better in 3.5 than 4th edition Warlocks are in 4th. Even without Hellfire Warlock your tentacles actually stop things, and your Dispel spam is surprisingly useful in high level combat, because everyone is buffed up. With Hellfire Warlock and the Glaive you do decent damage since you aren't limited to one attack a round.

Krag

12-02-2009, 08:55 PM

Limited as in 'automatically know everything on it, including spells added by other classes'? Because that's the main thing going for them. Only other class I know of that gets that is the Warmage, but they suck.

Any wizard has enough slots to pick every useful spell from beguiler's spell list. Thou he would not do that as he always has better options.

3.5 Warlocks are better in 3.5 than 4th edition Warlocks are in 4th. Even without Hellfire Warlock your tentacles actually stop things, and your Dispel spam is surprisingly useful in high level combat, because everyone is buffed up. With Hellfire Warlock and the Glaive you do decent damage since you aren't limited to one attack a round.

Any barb with PA can outdamage Hellfire Warlock. Dispell is nice but tooo situational for the limited number of "spells" warlock get.

RictrasShard

12-02-2009, 11:32 PM

I have to take exception to that last statement noone I know personaly feels that way even the people I know who like 4E, my friends who do like it admit if it wasnt for the name on it they might not even know it was dnd, but they like anyways we just dont play it together.

You take exception to what my friends and I feel?

Regardless, all the players I know feel the opposite of how yours do, so I guess it evens out.

Uska

12-02-2009, 11:41 PM

You take exception to what my friends and I feel?

Regardless, all the players I know feel the opposite of how yours do, so I guess it evens out.

She never said it wasnt a good game but it plays nothing like 1st ed dnd. Me I think it stinks worse then a bloody pile and I know its nothing like real dnd and is only dnd because Hasbro bought the name, I have been playing dnd for almost 35 years now.

DireWolverine

12-02-2009, 11:50 PM

She never said it wasnt a good game but it plays nothing like 1st ed dnd.

Neither does 3/3.5...

Me I think it stinks worse then a bloody pile and I know its nothing like real dnd and is only dnd because Hasbro bought the name, I have been playing dnd for almost 35 years now.

I've been playing since the blue-box edition, and I think it feels more like D&D than the last two versions (or last version plus update, take your pick). But these two viewpoints are both opinions, and you know what they say about those.

Letrii

12-02-2009, 11:55 PM

DireWolverine

12-03-2009, 12:12 AM

Me and my play group gave 4e a fair shake. Me and half the players never wanted to touch it again afterwards. My issue with healing surges is everyone can use them to heal and healers are reliant on a character having healing surges left, not on having a healing spell left. We much prefer the Vancian system. I also have every 3.5 book they released and see no reason to go to 4e.

Not wholly true. Clerics (and possibly other leaders) have Utility powers that can heal others without them spending healing surges - Cure Light Wounds at 2nd level, for example, which allows the target to 'regain hit points as if it had spent a healing surge'. (Emphasis mine.)

Paladins have Lay On Hands, allowing them to spend their healing surges to heal others - or themselves, if they need it. Which of course brings up the old joke about the Paladin 'touching himself in combat'. It's also really thematic and appropriate for a Paladin to sacrifice for the good of others. (Unless he's an Evil Paladin, in which case he does it so they'll be in his debt.)

Healing surges actually tie into a really important point about Hit Points in D&D that people have been ignoring for a long time. They *don't* represent physical damage, for the most part. They represent the character's ability to continue to fight through pain, fatigue, and discomfort. Healing surges actually represent recovering from those kinds of things better than Cure spells ever did, because a hero *should* be able to rally, shake off the fatigue, and jump back into the fight with an adrenaline surge. In 4E they can do just that, by taking their Second Wind. In 3/3.5 you had to get someone to heal you to represent that (unless you could heal yourself).

Letrii

12-03-2009, 12:22 AM

We never viewed HP as an abstraction, that just causes more problems and wasn't an issue before.

DireWolverine

12-03-2009, 12:28 AM

We never viewed HP as an abstraction, that just causes more problems and wasn't an issue before.

Actually, viewing HP as physical damage capacity leads to more problems. Because it doesn't matter how good a fighter you are, if I stab you in the heart with a dagger... you're going to die (barring immediate medical attention). If you view HP as physical damage, however, that simply isn't true at high levels (or pretty much ever, considering dagger damage vs. fighter HP in D&D).

Anyway, this is off-topic, so I'll stop with that said.

Uska

12-03-2009, 12:55 AM

Neither does 3/3.5...

I've been playing since the blue-box edition, and I think it feels more like D&D than the last two versions (or last version plus update, take your pick). But these two viewpoints are both opinions, and you know what they say about those.

Yes but I can see 1st in 3.x I cant in 4E the main thing that changed really was the ac system and I already used a house rule very close to 3.x's AC system for more then 25 years My main group prefered 2nd edtion me I like 1st but I did run 3.x for several years and had ZERO balance problems I just disallowed any splat books I didnt own and then didnt buy any. The one thing about this thread it lets me see who I would like to play with at cons and who I wouldnt and there are people I would and wouldnt play with on both sides of the fence, but it wouldnt be 4E in any case.:D

GramercyRiff

12-03-2009, 01:20 AM

Uska

12-03-2009, 01:42 AM

Holy ****! lol

If I had every 3.5 book, I'd never play any other game either.

How would you know if any of us showed up at the con you were at?

Some would say and others attitude would give them away, and if they said 4E was a great dnd game well that would be a dead give away:D But I wouldnt bother asking to join a pick up game if I saw it was 4E or invite anyone carrying 4E books into a 1st ed, HMB, or A's&8's game I was running. Me the few cons I go to I wear a badge or make a shirt to let it be known who I am. Since I am an old fart I went back to school so I havent been to a con in a while tried of being under stress and soon I hope to cause stress since I want to work for OSHA

RictrasShard

12-03-2009, 01:43 AM

Yes but I can see 1st in 3.x

I can't.

I cant in 4E

I can.

My main group prefered 2nd edtion me I like 1st

At least that is one thing on which we agree.

Uska

12-03-2009, 01:45 AM

I can't.

I can.

At least that is one thing on which we agree.

Like I said there are some 4E fanbois I might be willing to play with if it wasnt 4E, and some haters that I wouldnt play with.

GramercyRiff

12-03-2009, 01:46 AM

Some would say and others attitude would give them away, and if they said 4E was a great dnd game well that would be a dead give away:D But I wouldnt bother asking to join a pick up game if I saw it was 4E or invite anyone carrying 4E books into a 1st ed, HMB, or A's&8's game I was running. Me the few cons I go to I wear a badge or make a shirt to let it be known who I am.

What if the 4E player REALLY wanted to learn how to play HMB?:D

SquelchHU

12-03-2009, 08:47 AM

Any wizard has enough slots to pick every useful spell from beguiler's spell list. Thou he would not do that as he always has better options.

Not quite, and you're still ignoring the ability to easily add other spells onto the list. Which Wizards can do as well, but their method is a lot harder.

Any barb with PA can outdamage Hellfire Warlock. Dispell is nice but tooo situational for the limited number of "spells" warlock get.

14d6 damage + base damage + PA away full BAB and still hit on a 2. Maybe if the Barb charges, but the Hellfire Warlock doesn't have to. In any case my point is that 3.5 Warlocks are better in 3.5 than 4th edition Warlocks are there.

Krag

12-03-2009, 09:18 AM

Not quite, and you're still ignoring the ability to easily add other spells onto the list. Which Wizards can do as well, but their method is a lot harder.

Fail. You can only add low-level enchantment/illusion spells via Advanced Learning.

14d6 damage + base damage + PA away full BAB and still hit on a 2. Maybe if the Barb charges, but the Hellfire Warlock doesn't have to. In any case my point is that 3.5 Warlocks are better in 3.5 than 4th edition Warlocks are there.

14d6 damage is ok for one attack but not the whole attack sequence unless you are talking about low-levels.

Diarden1

12-03-2009, 09:23 AM

Shaamis

12-03-2009, 09:39 AM

Turbine should, however, regress to 2.0 edition. When Wizards took over TSR and brought out 3.0, it was a complete change as to what we were previously used to. The adjustment to AC, the change in all the rules... its just not the same.

Bring back 2.0!

I agree.

3.0 was the beginning of the "dumbing down" of Dungeons and Dragons.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, 2nd edition with the Players Options books were the most advanced ruleset AD&D offered, and you could make awesome 1st level characters with those rules.

If DDO allowed those rules for creating characters, I would sign on instantly.

Soulken

12-03-2009, 10:03 AM

What if the 4E player REALLY wanted to learn how to play HMB?:D

Well maybe if he burned his books Uska would let him play :D

GramercyRiff

12-03-2009, 12:43 PM

Fail. You can only add low-level enchantment/illusion spells via Advanced Learning.

There are other ways to add spells to a spell list. Rainbow Servant is the most egregious example. The entire Cleric list added to your spell list would be an upgrade right? Since they're spontaneous casters that know every spell on their list, adding access to the Cleric spell list means they get all the spells, and can cast them without prior preparation.

Shadowcraft Mage is another potent way to increase the spell list, albeit in a weird, roundabout, some would say, "shady" way. Of course Wizard does it better. Wizards do almost everything arcane better.

To say the Beguiler sucks is to lack understanding in what the class is capable of, notwithstanding Rainbow Servant and Shadowcraft Mage. The default spell list is full of great spells. Dealing damage is for melee. The skill list is awesome too, and you get plenty of skill points to support the list.

14d6 damage + base damage + PA away full BAB and still hit on a 2. Maybe if the Barb charges, but the Hellfire Warlock doesn't have to. In any case my point is that 3.5 Warlocks are better in 3.5 than 4th edition Warlocks are there.

You aren't familiar with pouncing uber chargers are you? There is no maybe in this scenario. Also, if you PAO the Barbarian and the Warlock, who's gonna have the better feats, features, and PrC's to exploit it more?

As for 3.5 and 4.0 Warlocks, meh, both have their places in each game. You really need to take another look at 4E though. A lot of things you say are wrong with it have changed. At the very least, you can come up with negative opinions that are up to date and relevant to the game as it is now.

Mumrah69

12-03-2009, 12:44 PM

Disagree completely. It is my opinion that 4.0e is nothing more than a money-grab and has resulted in an abomination hardly recognizable as DnD.

This is, of course, only my opinion.

Awesomely said and dead on to the factual point! Thanks! :-)

I've been playing 4th edition for a year now to give it a fair chance and I play with an excellent group of long time D&D'ers, and we're all coming to the same conclusion.

3.5 is the best, most polished version of the game, which holds the essence of the game as it was created so many years ago by Gary and Dave! :-)

4th Edition is a feeble attempt to increase sales and bring ppl back to PnP from the MMO's that they perceive has replaced tabletop gaming. Also, to bring new people to the PnP, who have started their gaming at the MMO level.

IMHO Paizo FTW! :-)

Xenus_Paradox

12-03-2009, 01:29 PM

Awesomely said and dead on to the factual point! Thanks! :-)

Perhaps you misread... the post you quoted contains no factual point.

I've been playing 4th edition for a year now to give it a fair chance and I play with an excellent group of long time D&D'ers, and we're all coming to the same conclusion.

3.5 is the best, most polished version of the game, which holds the essence of the game as it was created so many years ago by Gary and Dave! :-)

Gygax hated 3.5.

4th Edition is a feeble attempt to increase sales and bring ppl back to PnP from the MMO's that they perceive has replaced tabletop gaming. Also, to bring new people to the PnP, who have started their gaming at the MMO level.

So feeble that it's on the New York Times Bestseller list, a feat never accomplished by a single 3.5 book? Sure, champ. Whatever you say.

IMHO Paizo FTW! :-)

Whatever floats your goat.

Krag

12-03-2009, 04:47 PM

There are other ways to add spells to a spell list. Rainbow Servant is the most egregious example. The entire Cleric list added to your spell list would be an upgrade right? Since they're spontaneous casters that know every spell on their list, adding access to the Cleric spell list means they get all the spells, and can cast them without prior preparation.

Shadowcraft Mage is another potent way to increase the spell list, albeit in a weird, roundabout, some would say, "shady" way. Of course Wizard does it better. Wizards do almost everything arcane better.

To say the Beguiler sucks is to lack understanding in what the class is capable of, notwithstanding Rainbow Servant and Shadowcraft Mage. The default spell list is full of great spells. Dealing damage is for melee. The skill list is awesome too, and you get plenty of skill points to support the list.

Rainbow Servant has to go through 16 levels of pain and misery to gain his extra divine spells and lose 4 caster levels in the process. Ouch!

Although I agree that Shadowcraft Mage can make a decent character out of Beguiler,
he has a right to claim all credits for it. It's Shadowcraft Mage who is useful, not a Beguiler.

GramercyRiff

12-03-2009, 06:11 PM

Rainbow Servant has to go through 16 levels of pain and misery to gain his extra divine spells and lose 4 caster levels in the process. Ouch!

Although I agree that Shadowcraft Mage can make a decent character out of Beguiler,
he has a right to claim all credits for it. It's Shadowcraft Mage who is useful, not a Beguiler.

Text trumps table. The text says you don't lose 4 caster levels. It's debatable though, so I'm not too concerned about it. Beguiler does just fine on its own. That you can't see this doesn't change that.

You must not value skills much in your games. The Beguiler is the most skillful class in the game. Beguilers are skillmonkeys which makes them very versatile characters. Because of this they make fantastic scouts and party faces. Even without Shadowcraft Mage, you get illusion spells, a potent weapon. Glitterdust (one of the few conjurations you get) is an encounter ender for a really long time. Enchantment spells, while not the greatest, will have very high DC's with right feats (yes, more than just Spell Focus).

At any rate, the original post regarding Beguilers had them lumped in with the CW Samurai, an absurd comparison. Of course Beguilers can't match Wizards or Clerics or Druids, very few classes can. But they shouldn't be grouped with one of the worst classes in the game either.

SquelchHU

12-03-2009, 06:44 PM

Fail. You can only add low-level enchantment/illusion spells via Advanced Learning.

14d6 damage is ok for one attack but not the whole attack sequence unless you are talking about low-levels.

The purpose of Eldritch Glaive is so you can use it like a weapon that does your EB damage. If you do 14d6 that's +14d6 each hit on a full attack, which is also all touch attacks. I am well aware 14d6 a round is beyond trivial, you haven't seen my other posts have you?

GramercyRiff

12-03-2009, 07:09 PM

The purpose of Eldritch Glaive is so you can use it like a weapon that does your EB damage. If you do 14d6 that's +14d6 each hit on a full attack, which is also all touch attacks. I am well aware 14d6 a round is beyond trivial, you haven't seen my other posts have you?

Oh yeah I forgot about the shadowpouncer. Those dudes can do some sick damage for sure. Not that all glaivelocks are shadowpouncers mind you, or all shadowpouncers are glaivelocks.

Mentioning Glaivelock reminded me of shadowpouncers is all. That is all.

Krag

12-03-2009, 07:45 PM

Text trumps table. The text says you don't lose 4 caster levels. It's debatable though, so I'm not too concerned about it. Beguiler does just fine on its own. That you can't see this doesn't change that.

You must not value skills much in your games. The Beguiler is the most skillful class in the game. Beguilers are skillmonkeys which makes them very versatile characters. Because of this they make fantastic scouts and party faces. Even without Shadowcraft Mage, you get illusion spells, a potent weapon. Glitterdust (one of the few conjurations you get) is an encounter ender for a really long time. Enchantment spells, while not the greatest, will have very high DC's with right feats (yes, more than just Spell Focus).

At any rate, the original post regarding Beguilers had them lumped in with the CW Samurai, an absurd comparison. Of course Beguilers can't match Wizards or Clerics or Druids, very few classes can. But they shouldn't be grouped with one of the worst classes in the game either.

Even a gimped caster can be superior to melee in 3.5 save for the first few levels.
That's why I was comparing Beguilers to Wizards/Sorcs as they all are arcane casters and Samurai to Fighters/Barbarians.

GramercyRiff

12-03-2009, 08:04 PM

First off, I'm not comparing the Beguiler to anything, much less melee. I've stated what the class can do. It's far from useless and it's far from being in the same category or tier as the CW Samurai.

Let's talk about real flaws.
For example, tell me at least one gimeped class in D&D 4ed? Some useless trash like Samurai, Swashbuckler, Warmage, Beguiler,...?

There's your quote. You label Beguiler as useless. This is just not so. That's all I've been saying. You certainly weren't clear that you were comparing the Beguiler to a Wizard. Even when you do, you just find that the Wizard is more powerful. That happens a lot though when you compare classes to the Wizard. But after the comparison, if you even glance at the Beguiler you see it has plenty going for it, far more than the CW Samurai.

Also for the record the gold standard of melee sure as hell isn't the Fighter or the Barbarian.

Krag

12-03-2009, 08:21 PM

For me useless is not only the class who can't do anything at all but also the one who fulfills his role less effective than other classes.

If I would like to play a badass guy who swings a big stick in the front line, I would have to choose between Barbarian, Fighter, maybe Paladin and some other melee focused classes. I won't consider picking Wizard or Sorc even though they are so cool. The same goes for Beguiler. I would compare him to other arcane casters who happen to be far more powerful due to the spell versatility.

timberhick

12-03-2009, 10:23 PM

RictrasShard

12-04-2009, 01:16 AM

3.5 is the best, most polished version of the game, which holds the essence of the game as it was created so many years ago by Gary and Dave! :-)

4th Edition is a feeble attempt to increase sales and bring ppl back to PnP from the MMO's that they perceive has replaced tabletop gaming. Also, to bring new people to the PnP, who have started their gaming at the MMO level.

IMHO Paizo FTW! :-)

The essence of the game is exercising your imagination and creativity while having fun with your group. All of which is encouraged in 4E.

SquelchHU

12-04-2009, 07:57 AM

First off, I'm not comparing the Beguiler to anything, much less melee. I've stated what the class can do. It's far from useless and it's far from being in the same category or tier as the CW Samurai.

There's your quote. You label Beguiler as useless. This is just not so. That's all I've been saying. You certainly weren't clear that you were comparing the Beguiler to a Wizard. Even when you do, you just find that the Wizard is more powerful. That happens a lot though when you compare classes to the Wizard. But after the comparison, if you even glance at the Beguiler you see it has plenty going for it, far more than the CW Samurai.

Also for the record the gold standard of melee sure as hell isn't the Fighter or the Barbarian.

Exactly. And look at the other things he listed.

Samurai (presumably CW): Like a Fighter, except sucks even more. And Fighter is not viable to begin with.
Swashbuckler: Like Rogue, except sucks even more. Rogues are... closer to viable than most other non casters.
Warmage: Like a Sorcerer, except you only get the worst spells, which drops your effectiveness massively.

Even if it follows that the Beguiler is like a Wizard but worse they are not nearly so far behind, and the Wizard is so far ahead it is well away from being put in the NPC class pile. Of course it really doesn't as the primary advantage of the Wizard is having access to the game breaking stuff most people try to pretend does not exist anyways. The main thing that puts the Beguiler ahead is knowing all their spells at once, even the ones added to their list (Arcane Disciple is another fun one... hey, doesn't Luck Domain grant Miracle?)

If I would like to play a badass guy who swings a big stick in the front line, I would have to choose between Barbarian, Fighter, maybe Paladin and some other melee focused classes. I won't consider picking Wizard or Sorc even though they are so cool. The same goes for Beguiler. I would compare him to other arcane casters who happen to be far more powerful due to the spell versatility.

Why would you have to choose between one of about three classes, none of which fulfill your stated goals? Namely, being badass. Unless you consider falling over and dying in 6 seconds whenever you try to do your job as awesome. The irony of that is that wizards and sorcerers are better at meleeing than that. I am not kidding.

timber: Ok, so 3.5 and 4th edition warlocks are gimped, but 3.5 warlocks are still less gimped because their tentacles actually stop enemies from fighting back and their dispels allow them to participate a little in the high level tactical game (which consists of removing buffs from the other side, then ending it in one spell once they're vulnerable). Not much mind you, but they can at least do something.

Lastly, +1 rep for forbidden.

Letrii

12-04-2009, 08:52 AM

There are other ways to add spells to a spell list. Rainbow Servant is the most egregious example. The entire Cleric list added to your spell list would be an upgrade right? Since they're spontaneous casters that know every spell on their list, adding access to the Cleric spell list means they get all the spells, and can cast them without prior preparation.

Shadowcraft Mage is another potent way to increase the spell list, albeit in a weird, roundabout, some would say, "shady" way. Of course Wizard does it better. Wizards do almost everything arcane better.

To say the Beguiler sucks is to lack understanding in what the class is capable of, notwithstanding Rainbow Servant and Shadowcraft Mage. The default spell list is full of great spells. Dealing damage is for melee. The skill list is awesome too, and you get plenty of skill points to support the list.

You aren't familiar with pouncing uber chargers are you? There is no maybe in this scenario. Also, if you PAO the Barbarian and the Warlock, who's gonna have the better feats, features, and PrC's to exploit it more?

As for 3.5 and 4.0 Warlocks, meh, both have their places in each game. You really need to take another look at 4E though. A lot of things you say are wrong with it have changed. At the very least, you can come up with negative opinions that are up to date and relevant to the game as it is now.

That's not how spontaneous caster work. They known all spells on their spells known list (duh), not all spells on their class spell list.

What does HMB stand for? Homebrew?

Forbbidenone

12-04-2009, 01:37 PM

Making these comparisons shows your opinion is irrelevant.

I used terrible and tragic marks in history to describe how I feel 4th edition effects DnD. And for that my opinion is irrelevant? Or calling me evil?

Making a dramatic reference to a tragic event, to emphasize a point is a rather common tactic. In no way was I saying that 4th edition is as bad as those things in real life. Only in how it adversely effects the role playing games so many of us grew up with, and that many of us still play today.

Please exercise some common sense before posting a one line comment trying to appear knowledgeable about a persons opinion. Given that opinions by themselves are almost always irrelevant to anyone whose opinion dose not run parallel to the opinion in the first place.

If a person is satisfied with a gimped game trying to cater to those who do not have the mental capacity to track more than simple thought processes, then by all mean 4th edition dose its job admirably. However as I stated the vast majority of veteran gamers I have ever had the opportunity to discuss the impact of 4th edition with have agreed that it was a downturn in the general quality of game play to creativity factor.

In short 4th edition reads as a DnD for dummies book, for anyone who has had the pleasure of playing previous editions of the game. Even 3.0 and 3.5 editions added Something to the game, if not much for some peoples tastes. 4th has in my Opinion only detracted from the play value and creative effects that are at the core of the game for myself and many many others.

Please remember that everything stated here is a personal opinion about a game I truly dislike. The people who enjoy the game are not the focus, the merits and flaws of the game are the issue. I would rather Never play DnD again than play 4th.

Krag

12-04-2009, 02:00 PM

4th edition is the worst thing to ever happen to DnD since, well lets just say it is the equivalent to the Tsunami of 04, or Of Kracatoa, or the Holocaust.

Where is my popcorn?
I haven't seen that much drama for a long time.

Even if it follows that the Beguiler is like a Wizard but worse they are not nearly so far behind, and the Wizard is so far ahead it is well away from being put in the NPC class pile. Of course it really doesn't as the primary advantage of the Wizard is having access to the game breaking stuff most people try to pretend does not exist anyways. The main thing that puts the Beguiler ahead is knowing all their spells at once, even the ones added to their list (Arcane Disciple is another fun one... hey, doesn't Luck Domain grant Miracle?)

I have a simple suggestion but effective suggestion. If you do believe that Beguiler does not suck compared to wizard, stop throwing random ideas and post a whole not-too-sucky build. This is the only way to prove your point.

Why would you have to choose between one of about three classes, none of which fulfill your stated goals? Namely, being badass. Unless you consider falling over and dying in 6 seconds whenever you try to do your job as awesome. The irony of that is that wizards and sorcerers are better at meleeing than that. I am not kidding.

Because I have no clue and the class name suggests it should be decent in melee. The fact that fighters fail at melee points out the flawed design of an outdated edition. 4.0 fighters CAN fight.

SquelchHU

12-04-2009, 06:21 PM

And 4th edition creates other problems, like 'Strikers' who can't 'Strike', 'Defenders' who can't 'Defend' and so forth. Fixing the Fighter doesn't mean anything if you just go and create disconnects between stated ability and practical effect elsewhere.

Also, if you need all that effort to prove that Beguilers aren't NPC trash like CW Samurai, et al then you are already beyond all hope. Though really all that needs to be said is they have most of the main save or loses, and most of the defensive effects automatically and spontaneously. Starting right at level 1 with Color Spray. So yes, in some ways they are better than Wizards as I said. In some they are not. They certainly are not in the same pile of suck as the others you mentioned. And that's before they expand their list via any number of means.

RictrasShard

12-04-2009, 06:38 PM

ivanbss

12-04-2009, 08:58 PM

timberhick

12-05-2009, 12:59 AM

I used terrible and tragic marks in history to describe how I feel 4th edition effects DnD. And for that my opinion is irrelevant? Or calling me evil?

Making a dramatic reference to a tragic event, to emphasize a point is a rather common tactic. In no way was I saying that 4th edition is as bad as those things in real life. Only in how it adversely effects the role playing games so many of us grew up with, and that many of us still play today.

Please exercise some common sense before posting a one line comment trying to appear knowledgeable about a persons opinion. Given that opinions by themselves are almost always irrelevant to anyone whose opinion dose not run parallel to the opinion in the first place.

If a person is satisfied with a gimped game trying to cater to those who do not have the mental capacity to track more than simple thought processes, then by all mean 4th edition dose its job admirably. However as I stated the vast majority of veteran gamers I have ever had the opportunity to discuss the impact of 4th edition with have agreed that it was a downturn in the general quality of game play to creativity factor.

In short 4th edition reads as a DnD for dummies book, for anyone who has had the pleasure of playing previous editions of the game. Even 3.0 and 3.5 editions added Something to the game, if not much for some peoples tastes. 4th has in my Opinion only detracted from the play value and creative effects that are at the core of the game for myself and many many others.

Please remember that everything stated here is a personal opinion about a game I truly dislike. The people who enjoy the game are not the focus, the merits and flaws of the game are the issue. I would rather Never play DnD again than play 4th.
Strange then that there are a number of 'old time players' who find 4e to be too complex and prefer the more simplistic rules of old.
Is this vast majority of 'veteran gamers' an actual number or just your little group of gamers?

And 4th edition creates other problems, like 'Strikers' who can't 'Strike', 'Defenders' who can't 'Defend' and so forth. Fixing the Fighter doesn't mean anything if you just go and create disconnects between stated ability and practical effect elsewhere.
Is this one of those times where someone is supposed to say screenshot or it didn't happen?
I suppose you have the 'number' that a striker needs to do every round in order to be called a striker?

Agreed. IMHO, 4E added combat abilities that makes the game similar as MMORPG or maybe a chessboard game, you have to spend too much time thinking about your special moves and really loose the fun of a PnP RPG. Hack and Slash games sux !

although theres some good stuff on 4E, but it seems PAIZO is doing really good job using all thoose new features w/o breaking 3.5 apart.

(Sorry about my fail English)
I find it strange that people seem to lack imagination, unless there is a specific rule that say "you are able to...." no one thinks you can. I have found nothing in the older editions or PF that 'allows' you to roleplay. There is more said about roleplaying in the 4e phb than there is in the 3.5phb, yet so many haterz say there is no roleplay in 4e.

SquelchHU

12-05-2009, 06:31 AM

I have not noticed any such problems.

Then you should open your eyes.

As for the classes not able to do their jobs, let's see...

Not all strikers do 'top tier' DPS. Of course this is 4th edition so even top tier is pathetic, but given that some of them do far more damage than the others, and the Fighter also does more than most of them this renders a lot of classes useless. Like Warlocks.

Are there any 'defenders' who have a mark worth a ****? I think there might be one, but that's it. Which means the enemies do whatever the hell they want and ignore you. Unless the DM decides to humor you, but that would be bad because the one thing you don't want the enemy doing is focusing their attacks on a single character, no matter how tough they allegedly are. You want them spreading out their damage and not ganging up on the Orbizard. Well there's nothing you can do about point 2, but you don't want to help them out with point 1 by having the whole encounter get to work on one person.

ivanbss

12-05-2009, 12:36 PM

I find it strange that people seem to lack imagination, unless there is a specific rule that say "you are able to...." no one thinks you can. I have found nothing in the older editions or PF that 'allows' you to roleplay. There is more said about roleplaying in the 4e phb than there is in the 3.5phb, yet so many haterz say there is no roleplay in 4e.

No theres nothing saying you cant Rolyplay in 4E, except that 40% of the core book is focused on classes combat abilities (Grid stuff) and you only have half of skill choices you had on 3.5.

I feel like playing final Fantasy Tactics (Or Disgaea series).

OrphanAnnie

12-05-2009, 06:55 PM

Incoming sleep-deprived rant with terrible segues.

As a fangirl of AD&D, D&D 3rd Edition, and then D&D 3.5, I have to say, a lot of people are just dumb. I play 4th edition now, I like it. I still play 3.x editions too depending on DM, sometimes I even choose to DM a 3.x game over a 4th edition game just because of SUPPLEMENTAL RULES (that's right, 3.x had a whole crapload of books too) that 4th edition doesn't yet have to my knowledge, such as psionics especially. All in all, I can't wait for more 4th edition books to come out so this so-far already superior system/setting can become as complete as 3.x was. Sometimes D&D as a whole just won't have what I want and maybe I'll have to DM "Deadlands" or "Kobolds Ate My Baby" or "Rifts."

From what I can see, DDO is not a mix of editions, but maybe in all your attempts of trying to say 3.x was better than 4.0 (with usually your main reason being "WAAAAH BOOKS AND MONEY AND BARBARIAN ISN'T A CORE CLASS ANYMORE (It wasn't always a core class, rogues weren't even always rogues, change can be good, deal with it)) Eberron, the setting we're playing in, was the first D&D setting to have "action points." Lots of other PnP games had similar things such as victory points or chips or all manner of other ways to indicate progression of awesomeness that wasn't necessarily level-dependent.

Before you go around saying how terrible 4th edition is, maybe you should try playing it. Or don't and just whine about it, but even then perhaps read more and see that it's not at all a butchering of D&D, and it's not an attempt to play MMOs on paper (the mere idea is pretty much impossible if you know what MMO stands for). MMOs tend to flow better than D&D does, and in a lot of cases actually have more logical rules than D&D has. This is being changed.

Someone moved your cheese, it's not actually gone and waiting around where your cheese used to be isn't going to get your cheese back. Other mice have found where the cheese got moved to, and it's still just as delicious as it's always been.

As to this thread increasing by like two pages every time period in which it takes to read one page, successful troll is successful, +1.

whysper

12-05-2009, 07:06 PM

Before you go around saying how terrible 4th edition is, maybe you should try playing it. Or don't and just whine about it, but even then perhaps read more and see that it's not at all a butchering of D&D, and it's not an attempt to play MMOs on paper (the mere idea is pretty much impossible if you know what MMO stands for).

Not to take away from your great rant, but most of us favouring <4ed. have played it.

Letrii

12-06-2009, 03:50 AM

Each person has their own preferences, if they don't like it then why tell them to go play it?

RictrasShard

12-06-2009, 02:07 PM

Not all strikers do 'top tier' DPS. Of course this is 4th edition so even top tier is pathetic, but given that some of them do far more damage than the others, and the Fighter also does more than most of them this renders a lot of classes useless. Like Warlocks.

Our warlock does his job quite well. There are times where our party would have lost without him.

Are there any 'defenders' who have a mark worth a ****? I think there might be one, but that's it. Which means the enemies do whatever the hell they want and ignore you.

Incorrect. To start with, any foe that has been marked has negative 2 to hit with any attack that doesn't target whoever marked him. Also, each of the defenders has ways to punish a marked target that attacks others.

Unless the DM decides to humor you, but that would be bad because the one thing you don't want the enemy doing is focusing their attacks on a single character, no matter how tough they allegedly are.

My fighter focuses on abilities that increase his durability and recovery, so he can withstand almost any threat within our level range. To date, he has only been reduced to zero hit points once. That was because he was descending a chain to get to the enemies, failed and fell about twenty to thirty feet and landed prone at the feet of the enemies, by himself. Even then it took them several rounds to take him out.

You want them spreading out their damage and not ganging up on the Orbizard. Well there's nothing you can do about point 2, but you don't want to help them out with point 1 by having the whole encounter get to work on one person.

As was pointed out a while back, your claims about the brokeness of the Orbizard are also incorrect.

No theres nothing saying you cant Rolyplay in 4E, except that 40% of the core book is focused on classes combat abilities (Grid stuff) and you only have half of skill choices you had on 3.5.

I feel like playing final Fantasy Tactics (Or Disgaea series).

Less focus on skill rolls actually enhances roleplay.

Twerpp

12-06-2009, 02:23 PM

Not to worry 4.0 being the garbage that it is...there will be a completely s***ty game released to complement it eventually. Gotta milk it for all its worth.

DDO like BG, NWN, IWD is its own game from its own time. Let someone release a dedicated 4.0 game instead of mucking something good up trying to make a conversion.

whysper

12-06-2009, 03:11 PM

DDO like BG, NWN, IWD is its own game from its own time. Let someone release a dedicated 4.0 game instead of mucking something good up trying to make a conversion.

That boat sailed some time ago :p

Dawn_Falcon

12-06-2009, 11:57 PM

Less focus on skill rolls actually enhances roleplay.

Yea, shame it dosn't have that. Playing across the net with IRC and teamspeak is perfectly viable with 3e, done it for years. 4e? Nope, when combat starts you need to fire up Cyberboard rather than simply describing the action. It's all about precise powers rather than characters doing cool stuff. And you need to track a load of things which simply don't apply in 3e. Neither is it a flexible system, the only way to change the setting beyond generic fantasy is to rebuild the classes and powers from scratch...

RictrasShard

12-07-2009, 01:12 AM

Yea, shame it dosn't have that. Playing across the net with IRC and teamspeak is perfectly viable with 3e, done it for years. 4e? Nope, when combat starts you need to fire up Cyberboard rather than simply describing the action. It's all about precise powers rather than characters doing cool stuff. And you need to track a load of things which simply don't apply in 3e.

What does this have to do with skill rolls?

Regardless, while it is more difficult than in the past, it is still possible to play 4E by just describing the action.

Neither is it a flexible system, the only way to change the setting beyond generic fantasy is to rebuild the classes and powers from scratch...

And yet WoTC is making a different setting for it each year, using the classes as presented in the non-setting books (as well as a few others).

SquelchHU

12-07-2009, 07:58 AM

No theres nothing saying you cant Rolyplay in 4E, except that 40% of the core book is focused on classes combat abilities (Grid stuff) and you only have half of skill choices you had on 3.5.

I feel like playing final Fantasy Tactics (Or Disgaea series).

Final Fantasy Tactics had well... tactics. Disgaea was funny as hell. 4th edition lacks both tactical depth and comedic value (unless mocking it of course). What are you talking about?

Our warlock does his job quite well. There are times where our party would have lost without him.

And were he not a gimp he would be infinitely more useful. Further, the fact a gimp supposedly saved you does not speak well of your own character. Though given the vast majority of your arguments so far have been to the effect of 'You can have a lot of fun not playing 4th edition' and the only thing left to do is to realize that and '4th edition sucks, don't play it' are the same viewpoint and cease your arguing with me I am not inclined to take anything you say about it seriously.

Incorrect. To start with, any foe that has been marked has negative 2 to hit with any attack that doesn't target whoever marked him. Also, each of the defenders has ways to punish a marked target that attacks others

Which the enemy is still better off ignoring.

There are one of two possible scenarios:

Preferred target of mob has defenses 3 or more points lower than the 'defender': Mob laughs, does what it wants to anyways attacking priority target. You haven't helped them.

Preferred target of mob has defenses equal to (yours - 2) or higher: What the hell does the party need you for, again?

About the only one of them that can actually stop enemies from attacking an ally is the Swordmage, and even this is debatable. Everything else depends on the DM humoring you and playing the mobs like... well mobs. Because the system falls apart if he doesn't.

Lastly, 4th edition is a downgrade in that it regresses many elements of the game back to first edition. It doesn't revert to the random, arbitrary death part but it does revert to 'the whole game is the dungeon' as evidenced by the fact going outside breaks the game, and doing things besides killing things and stealing their belongings is also broken from the start. But more to the point they deliberately produce rules that don't work and then encourage you to ignore them.

For example a 1st edition thief will have around a 40% rating to their Find/Remove traps skill. Since it requires two checks - one to find the trap and one to remove the trap his success rate is 16%. And trapfinding was the only reason to bring a thief along so that's a 1 in 6 chance he does his job right and a 5 in 6 chance he and/or his party suffers some random death. DMs are encouraged to 'reward' 'creative' play which just results in everyone herding sheep through the dungeon or something similarly awful to avoid the traps.

In 4th edition your base chance of succeeding on one of many random die rolls in the non combat system is significantly less than 70% but if your chances are not 70% or higher you are hindering your party by participating because you need x * 2 successes before x failures. Solution presented by every article available? You can have lots of fun not playing our system! Here's some random junk to make up to try and still fail to make our system work, because we can't do our jobs right!

The problem with both of these systems is that you are paying for the rules. That's all you get for your money. Having them tell you to not use them would be like a car dealer extolling the virtues of riding a bicycle to work while attempting to buy an automobile. Even if you agree with him, the obvious corollary is 'So why do I need to buy your cars again?' Of course you don't actually need to ask that because the answer is obviously 'You don't'. If the car dealer then goes on to admit he's doing that because the cars he's supposed to be selling don't actually work, you have to start wondering how this guy still has a job, or an employer for that matter.

'Buy something you have no intention of using' may have worked a few decades ago when the gaming industry was less evolved, but as it is now they would have a hard time being more insulting if they tried with marketing spiels like that.

Dawn_Falcon

12-07-2009, 08:14 AM

And yet WoTC is making a different setting for it each year, using the classes as presented in the non-setting books (as well as a few others).

And the settings are forced by the system to only be marginally different in how they play.

Trying to run 4e just describing the action? Yea, lol, gl with that.

Krag

12-08-2009, 05:05 AM

And the settings are forced by the system to only be marginally different in how they play.

Your claim has no facts to support it.

Trying to run 4e just describing the action? Yea, lol, gl with that.

None of the D&D edition is an "S" type. Try GURPS.

And were he not a gimp he would be infinitely more useful. Further, the fact a gimp supposedly saved you does not speak well of your own character. Though given the vast majority of your arguments so far have been to the effect of 'You can have a lot of fun not playing 4th edition' and the only thing left to do is to realize that and '4th edition sucks, don't play it' are the same viewpoint and cease your arguing with me I am not inclined to take anything you say about it seriously.

Dwarf Infernolock|Blood Magus used to be one of the greatest damage dealers in the game. Even with all the nerfs coming his way and new stuff released for other classes he is far away from being gimp.

Which the enemy is still better off ignoring.

There are one of two possible scenarios:

Preferred target of mob has defenses 3 or more points lower than the 'defender': Mob laughs, does what it wants to anyways attacking priority target. You haven't helped them.

Preferred target of mob has defenses equal to (yours - 2) or higher: What the hell does the party need you for, again?

Play WoW if you want to establish inescapable aggro with just one button click.
Weakest mark among the all defenders is a price to pay for the highest AC possible, decent self-healing and the damage almost on par with strikers.

With Polearm Gamble and Heavy Blade Opportunity Paladin can give enemies a hard time avoiding him. Even more so if he uses terrain to his advantage (tight corridors, doorways, pieces of furniture, etc.). Controllers can help with well-placed conjurations and with all the ongoing conditions most enemies won't be able to reach fragile characters.

whysper

12-08-2009, 06:47 AM

Come to think of it, there is one thing that I would happily see incorporated from 4ed: the quite literal revamping of female dwarves.

andweir

12-08-2009, 07:44 AM

the pnp tabletop game isnt the same game.4th ed. changed d&d to be too much like warhammer.Wouldnt fit ddo.

timberhick

12-08-2009, 11:53 AM

the pnp tabletop game isnt the same game.4th ed. changed d&d to be too much like warhammer.Wouldnt fit ddo.

Which warhammer are you referring to? The miniature game? The roleplaying game? The MMO?

timberhick

12-08-2009, 12:08 PM

Final Fantasy Tactics had well... tactics. Disgaea was funny as hell. 4th edition lacks both tactical depth and comedic value (unless mocking it of course). What are you talking about?
I was going to expound upon the tactical depth that 4e have in spades over 3.5, when I realized you are not referring to tactics, but actually mean combos.

And were he not a gimp he would be infinitely more useful. Further, the fact a gimp supposedly saved you does not speak well of your own character. Though given the vast majority of your arguments so far have been to the effect of 'You can have a lot of fun not playing 4th edition' and the only thing left to do is to realize that and '4th edition sucks, don't play it' are the same viewpoint and cease your arguing with me I am not inclined to take anything you say about it seriously.
Yet the only thing you have been saying about 4e is "they took away my favorite combos I used to do so it sucks" When pressed for something other than vague references you squirm away from ever actually saying anything, you just shift your goalposts to something else.

Which the enemy is still better off ignoring.

There are one of two possible scenarios:

Preferred target of mob has defenses 3 or more points lower than the 'defender': Mob laughs, does what it wants to anyways attacking priority target. You haven't helped them.

Preferred target of mob has defenses equal to (yours - 2) or higher: What the hell does the party need you for, again?

About the only one of them that can actually stop enemies from attacking an ally is the Swordmage, and even this is debatable. Everything else depends on the DM humoring you and playing the mobs like... well mobs. Because the system falls apart if he doesn't.

So your 'thinking creature' is just peachy with allowing a defender free hits against it, because the PC it wants to target has a defense that is 3 less than the defender? I was going to ask just how does this 'thinking creature' know that the other target has this lower defense, when I realized that type of concept would be completely alien to you, so I wont ask it.

Dawn_Falcon

12-08-2009, 05:33 PM

Your claim has no facts to support it.

Well no, if you haven't bothered to consider the basics. Every single power is essentially setting-specific: Any setting more than marginally different is going to need you to replace a third of the extensive section of the PHB describing powers. It's inflexible.

timberhick

12-08-2009, 05:41 PM

Well no, if you haven't bothered to consider the basics. Every single power is essentially setting-specific: Any setting more than marginally different is going to need you to replace a third of the extensive section of the PHB describing powers. It's inflexible.

I must be missing something here, I do not understand what you are saying.
You mind using an example.

Dawn_Falcon

12-08-2009, 10:04 PM

I must be missing something here, I do not understand what you are saying.
You mind using an example.

The entire power set is based off a large number of assumptions. Rather than being able to adjust a relatively small set of powers or to change the base rules, any campaign world with significantly different assumptions to the base one is going to require that every power that violates those assumptions be altered.

Given Wizards don't want to do that, that severely limits how different their campaign worlds can be. Also, it means third party products making different assumptions have to do an awful lot of work generating new powers. (And the GSL is a significant annoyance when you're doing statblocks).

And that's before you go into the way the GSL divorces the sort of tested rulebase the d20/SRD system established. I can't stress this enough - a vast number of people who prefer worlds from third parties haven't and won't upgraded because Wizards have directly discouraged this with their licensing policy (not to mention how they screwed companies over with the d20 revocation). More,

Pathfinder is, bluntly, the answer an awful lot of companies are reaching for. In a few years, I think you'll find its ecosystem outstrips that for the 4th edition. You don't even need to comply with their own licence, given the actual pathfinder rules are OGL, either, but even if you do something they don't like then you don't need to destroy stock (which Wizard can force, have, did and have not promised not to make companies do again) and you even have 30 days to change PDFs.

And then they pulled the old official PDF's. Which means the third party and online SRD documents are now the best source of the 3.5e rules, so they've only really hurt themselves... (and gotten several product lines to end their link with the 3.5e print handbooks!)

The important RPG companies? Well, TSR will remain one, but it's rapidly making itself one of many. White Wolf...are fading, for reasons I won't go into because I don't want another major flamewar. Green Ronin, Paizo, Fantasy Flight Games, Catalyst Game Labs, Mongoose...those are the names to watch. And they are sharply moving *away* from 4e, to 3.5e and other systems - many of which are at least partially open themselves!

tldr version;

Wizards have acted like complete asses over 4e, and from a situation of heavy dominance of the entire RPG industry with 3.5e, the market has once again diversified (which doesn't favour Wizards one bit).

More, while they can and will block computer games based on 3.5e, I can say that there's a remarkable lack of computer games based on 4e, and don't expect that to change*. The market's been lopped off by Wizards, a self-inflicted wound which has seen even Bioware abandon them.

(*Yes, I know something. I can say I know something, but I cannot give ANY details. Please don't ask. Yes, I have worked on computer games as well as pen and paper RPG (and Strategy) ones. No, I have not worked on a MMO.)

timberhick

12-09-2009, 04:01 AM

double post

timberhick

12-09-2009, 04:02 AM

I have a completely different view.

The OGL allowed way too many fly-by-night craptacular products to be released by any and every person who could put out a pdf. Instead of enhancing the gaming community, it diluted the product to such an extreme that 3e/3.5e rule set was diminished by the very people trying to exploit it. There ended up being no quality control. WotC was competing against it's own OGL.

The companies you listed; Green Ronin, Paizo, Fantasy Flight Games, Catalyst Game Labs, Mongoose have no place to go. They are either tied to an old rule set(3.5) or even older systems(shadowrun, battletech, Runequest) or a licenseie of another's IP, or have no real following.

Let's look at Green Ronin. Their forum has 3500 members, not very many for a company that's been around since 2000. Compare that to Wyrd Miniatures who launched their skirmish game at Gencon 09 they have 2200 members.
Or that Green Ronin has 2 games based upon another's IP:Song of Fire and Ice, and Dragon Age and their other rpgs are based on a discarded rule set(3.5)M&M and true20. They have no where to go, because they have nothing unique about them. Their whole existence is based on other's work.

The gaming community is littered with companies trying to resurrect older games, or continuing a game, or acquiring the license to produce a product, none have ever achieved any kind of success. I have no idea why you think now it will work. Mongoose has some success, but that is more towards them having so many products that any one line can be doing horribly but they can eat the redline

This doesn't even take into account the companies that killed themselves by producing their product as an OGL, like AEG and Pinnacle, among others. Now some of these companies are trying to make a comeback, but they have already lost too many of their fanbase to be relevant anymore.

SquelchHU

12-09-2009, 08:14 AM

I was going to expound upon the tactical depth that 4e have in spades over 3.5, when I realized you are not referring to tactics, but actually mean combos.

The tactical depth that completely shatters the game when basic concepts such as 'mounted archer' are introduced, or the ones that stem from a complete failure of reading comprehension and basic mathematical skills on your part? Just want to check which of your own mistakes you're referencing here.

Yet the only thing you have been saying about 4e is "they took away my favorite combos I used to do so it sucks" When pressed for something other than vague references you squirm away from ever actually saying anything, you just shift your goalposts to something else.

Of course I suppose I don't need to reference the other thread, as you're doing an admirable job of demonstrating the same failings again. Because if you were reading and understanding correctly, you would know that if I were out to break the game I'd be all over 4th edition, since I can trivially make myself invulnerable at character creation. The fact that I not only am not doing this, but am highly affronted by all the false claims being made about it is more than enough proof you are wrong yet again.

So your 'thinking creature' is just peachy with allowing a defender free hits against it, because the PC it wants to target has a defense that is 3 less than the defender? I was going to ask just how does this 'thinking creature' know that the other target has this lower defense, when I realized that type of concept would be completely alien to you, so I wont ask it.

Sure, why not? Not only does HP damage not do anything, but everything does such pathetic damage that whatever you do is just a scratch. Whereas the real target there is erasing all damage taken every round (Cleric) or is infinitely stunlocking one of its fellow mobs (Orbizard) so yes it is going to go eat them, and it's going to tell all of its friends to focus fire on them as well. Now I could make a snarky remark about 'the computer is a cheating bastard' in another backhanded shot at 4th edition, but instead I'll answer seriously. The enemy looks at them. What's that? Heavier armor? Couldn't possibly be an higher AC could it? Nah, that's not right, and besides the game would break if enemies stopped acting like mobs and demonstrated some intelligence. Any other sort of defense? Well, classes are defined by whatever is held in their primary (and sometimes secondary) hand and worn on their body so just by seeing their weapon(s)/implement and armor you know their class instantly with a very high degree of accuracy. This information is easily available in world as it is an observable and repeatable phenomena. And that covers every intelligent creature in the book. The non intelligent ones that you'd be fighting? Predators go for the small and weak (hint: not the guy in plate armor). Same thing, different reasons.

Thanks for playing.

Aerniel

12-09-2009, 08:19 AM

SquelchHU

12-09-2009, 08:21 AM

your lucky i cant give out negative rep.

I can give out positive rep. :D

timberhick

12-09-2009, 01:23 PM

The tactical depth that completely shatters the game when basic concepts such as 'mounted archer' are introduced, or the ones that stem from a complete failure of reading comprehension and basic mathematical skills on your part? Just want to check which of your own mistakes you're referencing here.
I have refuted your 'claim' about the mounted archer. It doesn't work. But let's add more to it just to cover some more bases.
Mount the baddies on their own mounts
Um..here's an idea, don't have every single encounter be in a fallow field in Kansas
Hide
Ambush
Traps
Wow that was easy.

Why not just say ranged attacks rule the game because you just need to shoot from on top of a cliff or building.

Of course I suppose I don't need to reference the other thread, as you're doing an admirable job of demonstrating the same failings again. Because if you were reading and understanding correctly, you would know that if I were out to break the game I'd be all over 4th edition, since I can trivially make myself invulnerable at character creation. The fact that I not only am not doing this, but am highly affronted by all the false claims being made about it is more than enough proof you are wrong yet again.
So lets see this trivially make myself invulnerable at character creation you know, that put up or shut up thingy.

Sure, why not? Not only does HP damage not do anything, but everything does such pathetic damage that whatever you do is just a scratch. Whereas the real target there is erasing all damage taken every round (Cleric) or is infinitely stunlocking one of its fellow mobs (Orbizard) so yes it is going to go eat them, and it's going to tell all of its friends to focus fire on them as well. Now I could make a snarky remark about 'the computer is a cheating bastard' in another backhanded shot at 4th edition, but instead I'll answer seriously. The enemy looks at them. What's that? Heavier armor? Couldn't possibly be an higher AC could it? Nah, that's not right, and besides the game would break if enemies stopped acting like mobs and demonstrated some intelligence. Any other sort of defense? Well, classes are defined by whatever is held in their primary (and sometimes secondary) hand and worn on their body so just by seeing their weapon(s)/implement and armor you know their class instantly with a very high degree of accuracy. This information is easily available in world as it is an observable and repeatable phenomena. And that covers every intelligent creature in the book. The non intelligent ones that you'd be fighting? Predators go for the small and weak (hint: not the guy in plate armor). Same thing, different reasons.

Thanks for playing.
Again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of 4e.
Lets gander at the supposed "classes are defined by whatever is held in their primary (and sometimes secondary) hand and worn on their body"
We'll ignore the fighters, paladins, clerics, wardens, barbarians, swordmages, rogues, assassins, rangers, bards, warlords. yeah that should be good.
So we are left with
Warlock: wait they can wear plate armor and have a dagger as an implement. Yep that's a dead give away that they are a warlock
Wizard: wait they can wear plate armor if they want and can use a sword as an implement. So every plate wearing, sword wielding person is a wizard. gotcha
Sorcerer: Wait they can wear plate armor and use a dagger as an implement, Of course thats a dead give away

Again this is too easy. Of course nothing stops any player from wearing robes over their armor or not using thier implement, granted they lose some bonus to hit and damage, but it is not needed to casts spells.

Oh wait you had some more. small and weak you said.
Well stranghely enough the defender of the group just happens to be a halfling warden. By all means let the 'Predators go for the small and weak' he gets to do his job easy peasy. Sure the Sorcerer just happens to be a dragonborn cosmic sorc, so he is all big and buff...
Guess not everything is as it seems.

Of course this can't happen in 4e
I'm just making it all up

You got played

Xenus_Paradox

12-09-2009, 04:28 PM

The Favored Soul's Prestige Enhancements (and character paths) are based loosely on the roles filled by the 4E Avenger class (divine melee striker), the Flame of Hope Paragon path of the 4E Invoker (focus on the divine leader aspects of the class), and the Hammer of Vengeance Paragon path of the 4E Invoker (focus on the divine controller/ranged striker aspects of the class).

We "generic-ed" up the names of the two Paragon paths to make them fit the Eberron pantheons better ("Flame of Hope" sounds too much like a Silver Flame only PrE, and none of the faiths available to DDO PC's use hammers), and "Avenger" looked very sad sitting there with just one word next to the other two, so it gained the word "Divine".

Just like the Thief-Acrobat (a 3.0 PrC from Song and Silence), we're not limiting ourselves solely to 3.5 prestige classes for the inspiration for the PrE's.

All you 4E haters who threatened to quit DDO if 4E elements were added? Put up or shut up.

Junts

12-09-2009, 04:36 PM

Which warhammer are you referring to? The miniature game? The roleplaying game? The MMO?

An actual, 15 lb metal warhammer.

clanqui

12-09-2009, 04:52 PM

Krag

12-09-2009, 04:57 PM

Aspenor

12-09-2009, 04:59 PM

whysper

12-09-2009, 05:01 PM

But which version are the kids in high school/junior high playing right now.

Pokeg the Card Gathering, probably. And not even the good ones like Munchkin.

Xenus_Paradox

12-09-2009, 06:51 PM

Aspenor

12-09-2009, 07:00 PM

3.x books are considerably tougher to find, being out of print and all. 3.x also has a much steeper learning curve, and has fewer interesting character options when using only the 3 core books IMO.

amazon.com is a wonderful thing ;)

Korvek

12-09-2009, 07:11 PM

But which version are the kids in high school/junior high playing right now.

For better or worse, most I know of play 4th edition, the majority of which haven't tried 3.5 because they think it's "too complicated" because that's what they heard from "someone else".

While it may be a costly endeavor, try to let him take a look at books from both 3.5 and 4.0, and let him make his own decision.

I don't have any real recommendations, as both versions have some serious flaws (DM houserules are a big factor in how obvious they are) in my opinion, but the "fun" factor is what counts, and that's unique to each individual.

whysper

12-09-2009, 08:40 PM

3.x ... has fewer interesting character options when using only the 3 core books IMO.

*boggle*

Alrighty, I declare this debate over.

SquelchHU

12-10-2009, 07:52 AM

Question. I'm an old (old old) PnP guy, and kind of out of touch other than my own gaming groups. But which version are the kids in high school/junior high playing right now.

Just that question, not which one is better (1st ed) or whether wizards/atari are evil scumsucking capitalists (water is also wet). I'm asking for gift purposes for a young relative who wants to get started playing.

3.5. 3rd is inferior to 3.5. 1st and 2nd are based on a lot of outdated assumptions, among which is a DM vs player attitude that won't do him any good. He will take one look at 4th edition and ask him why you didn't just get him a WoW subscription, instead.

*boggle*

Alrighty, I declare this debate over.

Yeah, Xenus is wrong again. Granted, 'non casters' aren't among the interesting, core only 3.5 options which leaves less than half the classes. But less than half is still > zero. And that's before factoring in all the genuinely different things they do.

katana_one

12-10-2009, 08:13 AM

Question. I'm an old (old old) PnP guy, and kind of out of touch other than my own gaming groups. But which version are the kids in high school/junior high playing right now.

Just that question, not which one is better (1st ed) or whether wizards/atari are evil scumsucking capitalists (water is also wet). I'm asking for gift purposes for a young relative who wants to get started playing.

As a risk-free option, you can go to the official D&D home page (www.wizards.com/dnd) and download a PDF copy of the 4e adventure "Keep on the Shadowfell." This adventure includes pre-gen characters and a "quick-start" playable version of the 4e rules. Just a forewarning, the rules in the print version of that module were incomplete and there were some errors in the pre-gens I noticed once I got the core rulebooks. I don't know if these were corrected for the free PDF version (I doubt it), but even if the errors are still there it might be worth looking at. Download it, run a game session with your young relative and see how he/she likes it before shelling out money for the rulebooks.

timberhick

12-10-2009, 01:54 PM

He will take one look at 4th edition and ask him why you didn't just get him a WoW subscription, instead.

With your complete lack of understanding of the system, I am not surprised by the comment.

SquelchHU

12-10-2009, 02:41 PM

With your complete lack of understanding of the system, I am not surprised by the comment.

You're actually right, I was mistaken. World of Warcraft has greater tactical depth than 4th edition. You're right, it's not the same. WoW is in every way superior while filling the same niche. And I don't even like World of Warcraft. DDO, or any other MMO really does it better as well.

clanqui

12-10-2009, 04:16 PM

As a risk-free option, you can go to the official D&D home page (www.wizards.com/dnd) and download a PDF copy of the 4e adventure "Keep on the Shadowfell." This adventure includes pre-gen characters and a "quick-start" playable version of the 4e rules. Just a forewarning, the rules in the print version of that module were incomplete and there were some errors in the pre-gens I noticed once I got the core rulebooks. I don't know if these were corrected for the free PDF version (I doubt it), but even if the errors are still there it might be worth looking at. Download it, run a game session with your young relative and see how he/she likes it before shelling out money for the rulebooks.

I just found out he's got this intro package, so it looks like it's going to be 4th edition, and probably a family game over the holidays. Thanks for feedback all.

timberhick

12-10-2009, 04:32 PM

You're actually right, I was mistaken. World of Warcraft has greater tactical depth than 4th edition. You're right, it's not the same. WoW is in every way superior while filling the same niche. And I don't even like World of Warcraft. DDO, or any other MMO really does it better as well.

You keep harping on this 'greater tactical depth' and your only answer to that 'greater tactical depth' is spells.

I'll give you a profile of you.

You are in your 20s, most likely early 20s. Got your start in gaming through CCGs most likely pokemon and upgraded to M:tG, probably won some local tournies, after that you may have ventured into CTG(clicky-tech, mageknight). Got into D&D because WotC owned it, likely just before 3.5 was released.
As a player you are loud, argumentative, bully the other players, spotlight oriented. You have been booted from a number of games, disliked by a majority of other roleplayers in your area. The ones who do game with you treat you as a minor deity, which you lap up with pleasure. Your foray into Dming was a disaster. Your later Dms were people you could browbeat into allowing you to do whatever you wanted, which is your preferred gaming style.

Of course you're going to say I'm way off base and that you are in your 40s, the most popular player in your area, nice guy, everyone scrambles to get into a game you are in.

So lets see this trivially make myself invulnerable at character creation you know, that put up or shut up thingy.
I'm still waiting. You offered, I accepted. Lets see it.

SquelchHU

12-11-2009, 09:11 AM

You keep harping on this 'greater tactical depth' and your only answer to that 'greater tactical depth' is spells.

I'll give you a profile of you.

You are in your 20s, most likely early 20s. Got your start in gaming through CCGs most likely pokemon and upgraded to M:tG, probably won some local tournies, after that you may have ventured into CTG(clicky-tech, mageknight). Got into D&D because WotC owned it, likely just before 3.5 was released.
As a player you are loud, argumentative, bully the other players, spotlight oriented. You have been booted from a number of games, disliked by a majority of other roleplayers in your area. The ones who do game with you treat you as a minor deity, which you lap up with pleasure. Your foray into Dming was a disaster. Your later Dms were people you could browbeat into allowing you to do whatever you wanted, which is your preferred gaming style.

This is entertaining. You're about 20-30% correct, which means you are improving.

Mid 20s, never played CCGs, don't even know what CTG stands for. Got into tabletop D&D because games like Eye of the Beholder (SNES, based on 1st or 2nd edition) and Baldur's Gate (PS2, based on 3rd or 3.5) had just enough of the D&D ruleset built in to get me interested, combined with the fact I had borrowed someone's first edition books at age 10, and read and understood them perfectly but could not find anyone around my age at the time, or even significantly older mature enough, and interested enough to start a tabletop game then.

I very rarely raise my voice at all for any reason, only argue constantly with idiots who I would not play with, work to help the other players do whatever it is they want to do in a way that is functional and fun, and I do that so that everyone can participate in the adventure. If I were the spotlight hogger you claim I am I'd be happy to see people roll up gimp classes like Fighters, because it means I'm going to be doing more of the legwork. Except I'm not and I don't.

I have never been kicked from any game, ever. I have kicked a handful of people from a game, but this is a rare occurrence as I am selective about how I associate with and I catch the things like 'guy who wants a level 20 pet at level 5' before they get in my game.

The people I do game with treat me with respect, just as I do to them. Respect =/= reverence. I know this is a shocking concept to you, but I am generally an agreeable person. However my pleasant mood stipulates on the other person not being able to sink in dried concrete.

The first game I tried to run did suck. But as this is true of everyone, it does not really mean anything. My later DMs were with people that understood how the game worked, because if I did want to bring a Fighter to the table I did not want to be denied Nice Things at every turn, while the rest of the party easily handles the adventure without me. No browbeating or bullying involved, just some questions.

And 'my preferred gaming style' is a game where things are coherent, the fluff is in line with the crunch, and feasible challenges are presented anyways. Which means things like 'pretending the PCs care about a 10th level Fighter' destroy immersion, because it is well established they can't do much, and characters should know the rules of their own world. If I just wanted an I win button all my level 5 and higher characters would have one (1) Candle of Invocation. And that would be it. Even better I'd go play 4th edition where I can get an I win button at level 1 by being a horse archer. Or just spam infinite healing through the pathetic damage, whichever.

Dawn_Falcon

12-11-2009, 12:36 PM

3.x books are considerably tougher to find

Yep, but you don't need them.

http://www.d20srd.org/

There we go.

Dawn_Falcon

12-11-2009, 12:43 PM

The companies you listed; Green Ronin, Paizo, Fantasy Flight Games, Catalyst Game Labs, Mongoose have no place to go. They are either tied to an old rule set(3.5) or even older systems(shadowrun, battletech, Runequest) or a licenseie of another's IP, or have no real following.

Let's look at Green Ronin. Their forum has 3500 members, not very many for a company that's been around since 2000. Compare that to Wyrd Miniatures...

You're directly comparing a miniature wargame company with a RPG company? No, I guess you really are acting that silly.

So what 3.5 is "old". It's an active and actively developed system with a wide base of available rules, and which is comprehensible to the vast majority of roleplayers out there - and can be realistically played without a hex map. So what if they have other systems - some games (like Traveller) do better under other rulesets, which work better with their flavour. So what if they're a licence, many licences are highly profitable.

(Also, hint? Mongoose's new products are not licences. They're owned by the same company which owns 2000AD now)

Not every RPG is going to succeed in the marketplace, but 4e's takeoff has been very restricted compared to 3e's, and the market's rediversification in the last year has basically been entirely at Wizard's expense. From being one of the two centers of the RPG world (with White Wolf), they're now just another RPG company.

Letrii

12-11-2009, 05:56 PM

Yep, but you don't need them.

http://www.d20srd.org/

There we go.

Actually you do need books. SRD does not include character creation and some other things for a reason.

SquelchHU

12-11-2009, 06:23 PM

Actually you do need books. SRD does not include character creation and some other things for a reason.

SRD is missing:

Character generation methods (which are common knowledge anyways).
Wealth by Level, important for balance purposes, but also an easily remembered set of numbers since there's only 19 to keep track of. I may be biased on this one though as while I have no trouble remembering 19 numbers, others might.

I think it's also missing things like random dungeon generation and all the fluff text, but the crunch critical parts are not very big, content length wise.

whysper

12-11-2009, 06:26 PM

The SRD is just outright not sufficient to start from scratch. It is sufficient as a rules reference for a group familiar with the mechanics with an experienced GM.

Dawn_Falcon

12-11-2009, 11:43 PM

Actually you do need books. SRD does not include character creation and some other things for a reason.

You're confusing the d20 license (now dead as a dodo) with the OGL license, which has no such limits, although you're right the site I linked dosn't have those rules (it's an errata'd version of the SRD docs, nothing else). Besides, you don't need your players to have the handbooks to handle character generation. Or xp gain for that matter.

Oh and for reference? The Pathfinder version (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/). Which *does* have full character generation rules and XP tables, although I'd of laid it out a bit differently. Of course, this version (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/) is a lot better laid out :)

timberhick

12-14-2009, 11:32 AM

You're directly comparing a miniature wargame company with a RPG company? No, I guess you really are acting that silly.

So what 3.5 is "old". It's an active and actively developed system with a wide base of available rules, and which is comprehensible to the vast majority of roleplayers out there - and can be realistically played without a hex map. So what if they have other systems - some games (like Traveller) do better under other rulesets, which work better with their flavour. So what if they're a licence, many licences are highly profitable.

(Also, hint? Mongoose's new products are not licences. They're owned by the same company which owns 2000AD now)

Not every RPG is going to succeed in the marketplace, but 4e's takeoff has been very restricted compared to 3e's, and the market's rediversification in the last year has basically been entirely at Wizard's expense. From being one of the two centers of the RPG world (with White Wolf), they're now just another RPG company.

You know why I compared it to a miniature company? That miniature company has a following nearly as large as Green Ronin, when they are not even distributed by any major distributor. It has been done by word of mouth and a couple showings at some Cons. Green Ronin has had nearly a decade to establish itself as a major player in the OGL market. Yet noone really plays with any of their products. I went looking through my local gamestores(all 5 of them) not a single one has any Green Ronin products on the shelves. In fact only Paizo(PF and maps) and Mongoose(Traveller, one store had Paranoia and Conan, all had some of the Flaming Cobra products) had any product available locally.

The number of RPG companies has always been large. Thinking the White Wolf and WotC are just another RPG companies shows how little you actually understand of the industry.

timberhick

12-14-2009, 11:41 AM

This is entertaining. You're about 20-30% correct, which means you are improving.

Mid 20s, never played CCGs, don't even know what CTG stands for. Got into tabletop D&D because games like Eye of the Beholder (SNES, based on 1st or 2nd edition) and Baldur's Gate (PS2, based on 3rd or 3.5) had just enough of the D&D ruleset built in to get me interested, combined with the fact I had borrowed someone's first edition books at age 10, and read and understood them perfectly but could not find anyone around my age at the time, or even significantly older mature enough, and interested enough to start a tabletop game then.

I very rarely raise my voice at all for any reason, only argue constantly with idiots who I would not play with, work to help the other players do whatever it is they want to do in a way that is functional and fun, and I do that so that everyone can participate in the adventure. If I were the spotlight hogger you claim I am I'd be happy to see people roll up gimp classes like Fighters, because it means I'm going to be doing more of the legwork. Except I'm not and I don't.

I have never been kicked from any game, ever. I have kicked a handful of people from a game, but this is a rare occurrence as I am selective about how I associate with and I catch the things like 'guy who wants a level 20 pet at level 5' before they get in my game.

The people I do game with treat me with respect, just as I do to them. Respect =/= reverence. I know this is a shocking concept to you, but I am generally an agreeable person. However my pleasant mood stipulates on the other person not being able to sink in dried concrete.

The first game I tried to run did suck. But as this is true of everyone, it does not really mean anything. My later DMs were with people that understood how the game worked, because if I did want to bring a Fighter to the table I did not want to be denied Nice Things at every turn, while the rest of the party easily handles the adventure without me. No browbeating or bullying involved, just some questions.

And 'my preferred gaming style' is a game where things are coherent, the fluff is in line with the crunch, and feasible challenges are presented anyways. Which means things like 'pretending the PCs care about a 10th level Fighter' destroy immersion, because it is well established they can't do much, and characters should know the rules of their own world. If I just wanted an I win button all my level 5 and higher characters would have one (1) Candle of Invocation. And that would be it. Even better I'd go play 4th edition where I can get an I win button at level 1 by being a horse archer. Or just spam infinite healing through the pathetic damage, whichever.
I think people find it hard to believe you are such an agreeable player, though I did notice that you argue with people(and kick them) if they do not think the way you do.

You keep spamming this Horse Archer concept, why is that? Why do you keep touting this as some uber way to play the game? Are all of your encounters out in some open fields? Why do you think every encounter has opposition with no ranged attacks?
Infinite healing? That is funny. Especially coming from a 3.5 player where infinite healing was just a wand away.

Dawn_Falcon

12-14-2009, 12:28 PM

You know why I compared it to a miniature company?

Because you don't understand the differences in demographic and distribution patterns between miniatures and RPG's, or the importance of online PDF sales to the wider RPG industry.

timberhick

12-14-2009, 01:45 PM

Because you don't understand the differences in demographic and distribution patterns between miniatures and RPG's, or the importance of online PDF sales to the wider RPG industry.

I would rather you continue to believe that online sales of PDFs actually means something to the RPG industry.

This is the reason why you are misinformed about WotC being just another RPG company.
- Welcome to Artizan Designs
- Pulp Figures
- Crusader Miniatures
- Black Tree Designs
- The Foundry
- Copplestone Castings
- Griffin Miniatures
- Hundred Kingdoms
- Army Group North Miniatures
- Quality Casting Miniatures
- PST Plastic Model Kits
- Front Rank Figurines
- Pegaso Models
- Mark Fenlon Miniatures
- Newline Design
- Cannon Fodder
- Dwarven Forge
- Ral Partha Europe
- Battlefield Miniatures
- Canterbury Miniatures
- Grenadier Fantasy Miniatures
- Gripping Beast
- Scotia Grendel Productions
- Excalibur Miniatures
- Historical Miniatures
- Assassin Miniatures
- Perry Miniatures
- Tamiya
- Essex Miniatures
- Eureka Miniatures
- Stan Johansen Miniatures
- Stronghold Miniatures
- The Assault Group
- Amazon Miniatures
- Brigade Models
- Bronze Age Miniatures
- Chiltern Miniatures
- Corvus Belli
- Fortress Figures Inc.
- Museum Miniatures
- Musket Miniatures
- Park Field Miniatures
- Phigs Miniatures
- Victory Force Miniatures
- Jason Pariah Miniatures
- North Star Figures
- Ravens Forge
- Acheson Creations
- East Riding Miniatures
- Flags for the Lads
- Frei Korps 15 & Platoon 20
- Pendraken Miniatures
- West Wind Productions
- Donnington Miniatures
- Heresy Miniatures
- Leva Productions Online
- Moonlight Miniatures
- Pass o the North
- Renaissance Ink
- Thunderbolt Mountain Miniatures
- Adler Miniatures
- Black Raven Foundry
- Mithril
- Old Glory Miniatures
- Panzerschiffe Model Ships
- Pewter Craft
- Scale Specialties
- The Honourable Lead Boiler Suit Co...
- TL-Decals
- Warrior Miniatures
- 1/600 Shipyard
- Baccus Minis
- Gladiator Games
- Ground Zero Games
- Hall of Ancient Warriors
- Hinchliffe
- Homegrown Miniatures
- Mammoth Miniatures
- Manufacturer Fantasy and Sci-fi mo...
- Metal Maniacs Miniatures
- Naval Solutions
- RAFM
- Zvezda
- Mage Knight
- Quick Reaction Force
- Sampson Ships
- Satyr Sculpting Studio
- Testors
- Vendel Miniatures
- WizKids Games
- Castaway Arts
- Figure Manufacturer Listing
- Freebooter Miniatures
- Frontier Miniatures
- Mirliton
- Prince August
- CharGen Sculptures
- Evil Gong Miniatures
- Kallistra
- Lancashire Games
- Old Glorys 15s
- PHD Games
- Redoubt Enterprises
- Saratoga Soldier
- Tin Soldier
- Trux Models
- Viriatus
- Ares Mythologic
- Associazione Modellistica Legione
- ATS Original Toy Soldiers
- DLD Productions
- Haus of Stuff
- Lance and Laser Models, Inc
- Minifigs
- Outpost Wargame Services
- ShadowForge Miniatures
- Testudo
- The London War Room
- Timeline
- Vendel Miniatures
- Welsh Models
- X-O Facto
- ZombieSmith
- Zotz
- Ace Models
- Crocodile Games
- Denizen Miniatures
- Dream Pod 9
- Dust Game
- ETamiya
- GJUSS Ltd.
- HaT Industrie
- Navigator Miniatures
- Superfigs
- Thoroughbred Models
- Tin Soldier UK
- TinBay.com

And that's not even an exhaustive collection of miniature companies. If you want I can do the same with RPGs

Abacus Dimensions

Abstract Nova Entertainment LLC

Adamant Entertainment

Adept Games

Adept Press

Adventure Games, Inc.

Adventure Planning Service

Adventures for Christ

Adventure Simulations

Adversary Games

Aetherco

Aetheral FORGE

Aiolos

Airweaver Games

Akashia Live Action Roleplaying Association

Akrito Editora

Alderac Entertainment Group

Alice RPS

Alltid Attack

Alternate Realities Publications

Ambient, Inc.

Anarchy inK

Anubium

Anvilwerks

Apex Publications, Inc.

Apophis Consortium

Arc Dream Publishing

Archaia Studios Press

Archangel Games

Archangel Studios, LLC

Argonaut Game Studios

Arion Games

Arrose Enterprises

ASCII

Asterion Press

Astral Tower Games

Atarashi Games

Athal

Atlas Games

Atomic Hyrax Games

Atomic Sock Monkey Press

Auran d20 Adventures

Aurora Games

Avalanche Press

Aventyrsspel

Azathot, LLC

And that's just the A companies.

But you can continue to think that WotC is just another RPG company and that the companies you listed are ever going to actually compete with WotC or White Wolf.

SquelchHU

12-14-2009, 01:54 PM

I think people find it hard to believe you are such an agreeable player, though I did notice that you argue with people(and kick them) if they do not think the way you do.

You keep spamming this Horse Archer concept, why is that? Why do you keep touting this as some uber way to play the game? Are all of your encounters out in some open fields? Why do you think every encounter has opposition with no ranged attacks?
Infinite healing? That is funny. Especially coming from a 3.5 player where infinite healing was just a wand away.

If people find it hard to believe, then either:

1: They are an idiot.
2: They have only seen me interacting with the same.

Because barring that, I am quite pleasant to associate with.

The Horse Archer is another example of 'Low Strong'. The fact something so basic is a uber way to play 4th edition is a significant negative reflection upon it. And that's where all the horse archers fight because that's where they stay. If faced with a situation where this is not feasible, then they do the same thing the iconic horse archers did and burn em out.

I also assume few encounters have ranged attacks because few encounters do in fact have ranged attacks, and therefore it is an accurate and reasonable assumption. I also already long since countered that by illustrating that the few that can actually shoot back at all are countered by actually being good at shooting, as opposed to any old guy with a mount and a bow.

And the fact you think 'a wand' is infinite healing is perhaps the most absurd argument you've made so far.

Lesser Vigor wand (most favorable example to you to use): Heals 11 HP over 66 seconds. Beyond useless in combat at all levels and certainly not worth a combat action. Does help regain HP after the fight, but as there are only 50 charges it will go fast. Sure you can buy more, at the rate of 750 gold each it is still not infinite. By the time you can feasibly afford significant numbers of these, the threats you face don't care about your HP anyways.

Compare to 4th edition where the infinite healing might as well be Immune: Damage because nothing can swing hard enough to actually get through it. And since there's nothing to the game but grinding on mobs, Immune: Damage is an I win button. That you can get at level 1. QED.

timberhick

12-14-2009, 04:27 PM

If people find it hard to believe, then either:

1: They are an idiot.
2: They have only seen me interacting with the same.

Because barring that, I am quite pleasant to associate with.
When your first post was full of flamebait I seriously doubt it.

The Horse Archer is another example of 'Low Strong'. The fact something so basic is a uber way to play 4th edition is a significant negative reflection upon it. And that's where all the horse archers fight because that's where they stay. If faced with a situation where this is not feasible, then they do the same thing the iconic horse archers did and burn em out.
Like I said, theory is good on the monitor now come play the actual game.

I also assume few encounters have ranged attacks because few encounters do in fact have ranged attacks, and therefore it is an accurate and reasonable assumption. I also already long since countered that by illustrating that the few that can actually shoot back at all are countered by actually being good at shooting, as opposed to any old guy with a mount and a bow.
They do? I didn't realize every encounter possible has already been made. Where are these encounters at pray tell? So I guess creatures cannot be good at shooting? Better tell that to the opposition then and artificially lower their stats to make what Squelch says accurate.

And the fact you think 'a wand' is infinite healing is perhaps the most absurd argument you've made so far.
Helluvalot more accurate than anything you said about 4e so far.

Lesser Vigor wand (most favorable example to you to use): Heals 11 HP over 66 seconds. Beyond useless in combat at all levels and certainly not worth a combat action. Does help regain HP after the fight, but as there are only 50 charges it will go fast. Sure you can buy more, at the rate of 750 gold each it is still not infinite. By the time you can feasibly afford significant numbers of these, the threats you face don't care about your HP anyways.

Compare to 4th edition where the infinite healing might as well be Immune: Damage because nothing can swing hard enough to actually get through it. And since there's nothing to the game but grinding on mobs, Immune: Damage is an I win button. That you can get at level 1. QED.
Lesser Vigor is not Core and thus, as you say, not worth it.

But I fail to see this Infinite Healing, your horse archers have no Infinite Healing, maximizing accuracy and damage means they all have to be rangers and that means they only get 1 second wind.

Again I find it strange that you disparage 4e about Infinite Healing(not that it is even close to this, just another of your outrageous claims), when you say 3e isn't about damage past level 5.

SquelchHU

12-14-2009, 06:24 PM

Once again you spout the irrelevancies, so I'm just going to skip to the parts that might be salvageable.

They do? I didn't realize every encounter possible has already been made. Where are these encounters at pray tell? So I guess creatures cannot be good at shooting? Better tell that to the opposition then and artificially lower their stats to make what Squelch says accurate.

According to the 4th edition devs, not only are few encounters capable of executing a ranged attack, but fewer still should have a good one. The evidence? It's called the Monster Manual. And for some reason the elf you're fighting over there is so fundamentally different from the elf you're playing that it's really not even fair to call you the same species, much less the same class. They apparently think it's ok because they intend every encounter to happen in a cramped space. But if the system falls apart by going outside, you need to consider adding an average five year old child to your creative staff.

Lesser Vigor is not Core and thus, as you say, not worth it.

But I fail to see this Infinite Healing, your horse archers have no Infinite Healing, maximizing accuracy and damage means they all have to be rangers and that means they only get 1 second wind.

Again I find it strange that you disparage 4e about Infinite Healing(not that it is even close to this, just another of your outrageous claims), when you say 3e isn't about damage past level 5.

CLW heals half as much. Had I used an example that wasn't most favorable to your laughable claim you would have attacked that instead. Granted it does that in 1 round instead of 11, but it is still useless in combat because it is still too slow to offset enemy damage at any level.

And I disparage 4th edition about infinite healing because it doesn't even take that much to do that. Any one of the 'at wills' that does not use 'surges' is infinite healing. And since enemy damage is so pathetic (the highest level monsters in the game have difficulty killing level one characters in one shot) it does not take very much of this at all to make you flat out invulnerable. 30 healing a round endgame will do. Sure you could get this automatically by being a 'demigod', but it's available much, much sooner via other means.

By the way, the whole party doesn't need to be rangers. It makes the grind a bit faster, but 4 rangers and one other will do. And you get your infinite healing that way, not that you're getting hit much.

And 3rd is not about damage. Past about level 5 it's about the Glitterdust and the Web and the Slow (lower end) to the Tentacles and the Fog and the Save or Dies (middle end) to the Mazes and the Gates and the AoE Save or Dies (higher end). All spells that tend to end the combat swiftly and decisively, in a manner that doesn't care about your HP. So yes, that's very much true. But to compare the two is like saying that because your car broke down you will not be cooking yourself dinner. Non sequitors, at their finest.

Of course I fully expect you'll dodge all this, try to come up with some scenario where an automotive failure would legitimately stop you from getting a homecooked meal, and then make some more false/lying claims about 4th edition.

Dawn_Falcon

12-14-2009, 06:47 PM

I would rather you continue to believe that online sales of PDFs actually means something to the RPG industry.

Well, of course I am. Given I have sales figures for several companies which show it in some detail. (Hi! I work in games)

And why would a long list of companies have any bearing on anything? Explain, in detail, remembering that miniature wargaming is a separate market with an clientèle which only has a very partial overlap with that of the RPG industry. You'll allways have B-list companies, that dosn't mean that in relative terms there are more A-list RPG companies than 2000. (And WWs RPG production is, per CCP, a "legacy business" ...they're on the way down by their own *design*)

RictrasShard

12-14-2009, 11:33 PM

And were he not a gimp he would be infinitely more useful. Further, the fact a gimp supposedly saved you does not speak well of your own character.

Please explain how the warlock is gimped. Is it damage? Because I see one of his attacks does 3d10 + 5, as well as ongoing damage. Is it accuracy? Because he has a variety of attacks targeting different defenses, and can go after the weakest one. Note that I'm just looking at his first level abilities here.

Though given the vast majority of your arguments so far have been to the effect of 'You can have a lot of fun not playing 4th edition' and the only thing left to do is to realize that and '4th edition sucks, don't play it' are the same viewpoint and cease your arguing with me I am not inclined to take anything you say about it seriously.

Are you actually reading other posts, or are you just seeing what you want to see?

For example a 1st edition thief will have around a 40% rating to their Find/Remove traps skill. Since it requires two checks - one to find the trap and one to remove the trap his success rate is 16%. And trapfinding was the only reason to bring a thief along so that's a 1 in 6 chance he does his job right and a 5 in 6 chance he and/or his party suffers some random death. DMs are encouraged to 'reward' 'creative' play which just results in everyone herding sheep through the dungeon or something similarly awful to avoid the traps.

You expect a first-level character to be an expert at their skills?

Also, first edition wasn't about giving characters godlike abilties so that they could power through encounters without thinking. It was about rewarding players who used creativity, imagination, guile, and so forth to handle game situations.

Now, as for other things I've seen since I last posted:

1E DM vs Players: already been refuted, you chose not to respond, which indicates you conceded the point.

Orbizards: Shown that it is no longer an issue (if it ever was), you chose not to respond, which indicates you conceded the point.

4E has no ranged enemies: the people who made the Shadowfell module and its sequels would be surprised about that, as their encounters are full of effective ranged attackers.

Horse archers: this would work as an occasional tactic, but characters who relied on it would soon be taking a dirt nap.
-There are a variety of enemies in the Monster Manual that are faster than a horse.
-Intelligent enemies would come to expect this tactic and would use it to their advantage by setting traps, such as pits. Kind of difficult to ride out of a ten foot hole on a horse with a broken leg.
-Mastermind type enemies who were losing forces to this tactic would soon start training their own horse archers.
-And the biggest reason this tactic would soon fail is the skill roll. Firing a bow while riding a horse at high speeds is not easy. Even if the characters are all experts at it, rolls of 1 on skill checks are inevitable. It would be exceedingly difficult to use this tactic while you are lying stunned on the ground and your horse is rapidly heading off into the sunset.

First level invulnerable characters: you have given no actual explanation how this would be achieved. Your claim is short on detail, long on bluff.

SquelchHU

12-15-2009, 07:59 AM

Please explain how the warlock is gimped. Is it damage? Because I see one of his attacks does 3d10 + 5, as well as ongoing damage. Is it accuracy? Because he has a variety of attacks targeting different defenses, and can go after the weakest one. Note that I'm just looking at his first level abilities here.

Ranger. Since there's nothing but numbers, anything with inferior numbers is gimped. As the Ranger does considerably more damage... Hell, the Fighter does considerably more damage, and that's not even his narrowly defined role.

Are you actually reading other posts, or are you just seeing what you want to see?

I'm reading them. I'm repeatedly wanting to demand seconds of my life back, but I'm reading em.

You expect a first-level character to be an expert at their skills?

I expect a first level character to be able to competently deal with simpler traps, such as the sort first level characters would actually be facing. This is impossible as the static DC system gives them a 16% chance to deal with the trap properly, a 24% chance to find the trap and then set it off on themselves, and a 60% chance to never even see it coming, such that you were better off just herding sheep through the dungeon than taking the supposed professional. And since the thief wasn't good for anything but traps...

Also, first edition wasn't about giving characters godlike abilties so that they could power through encounters without thinking. It was about rewarding players who used creativity, imagination, guile, and so forth to handle game situations.

Smokescreen. I cast Gust of Wind!

Now, as for other things I've seen since I last posted:

1E DM vs Players: already been refuted, you chose not to respond, which indicates you conceded the point.

Outright lie.

Orbizards: Shown that it is no longer an issue (if it ever was), you chose not to respond, which indicates you conceded the point.

Another outright lie.

4E has no ranged enemies: the people who made the Shadowfell module and its sequels would be surprised about that, as their encounters are full of effective ranged attackers.

Outright lie used to create a strawman. I said few, not any, and those few are countered by actually being good at ranged attacks.

Outright lie used to create a strawman. I said few, not any, and those few are countered by actually being good at ranged attacks.

Yes, I just posted the same thing twice. That's because that same false argument has been presented no less than three times already despite being solidly refuted as not what I actually said.

Every time you repeat the same lie I will hit ctrl + c one more time.

Horse archers: this would work as an occasional tactic, but characters who relied on it would soon be taking a dirt nap.
-There are a variety of enemies in the Monster Manual that are faster than a horse.
-Intelligent enemies would come to expect this tactic and would use it to their advantage by setting traps, such as pits. Kind of difficult to ride out of a ten foot hole on a horse with a broken leg.
-Mastermind type enemies who were losing forces to this tactic would soon start training their own horse archers.
-And the biggest reason this tactic would soon fail is the skill roll. Firing a bow while riding a horse at high speeds is not easy. Even if the characters are all experts at it, rolls of 1 on skill checks are inevitable. It would be exceedingly difficult to use this tactic while you are lying stunned on the ground and your horse is rapidly heading off into the sunset.

Nope.
Sorry, this is the game that breaks in half when enemies are intelligent. You aren't proving anything, because if the enemies truly are intelligent than their whole 'role' system just doesn't work.
1s don't crit fail. Nice try. Not that there is even a skill check to ride a horse.

First level invulnerable characters: you have given no actual explanation how this would be achieved. Your claim is short on detail, long on bluff.

That's because I expect all these supposed experts to actually know more about 4th edition than I do, just as they claim they do. Likely a false assumption? Probably, but I'm at least giving the offenders a fair shot at proving me wrong. After all, someone got the Sirlin reference on the first try and that is more obscure.

But anyways, my answer is two words long. Astral Seal. 1-30 invulnerability. Have a nice day.

RictrasShard

12-15-2009, 11:52 AM

Ranger. Since there's nothing but numbers, anything with inferior numbers is gimped. As the Ranger does considerably more damage... Hell, the Fighter does considerably more damage, and that's not even his narrowly defined role.

The ranger is a striker. Some strikers are better than others. Still, there is nothing in a low-level ranger's arsenal that does considerably more damage than 3d10 + 5 followed by ongoing damage. The same goes for the fighter, but more so. Both of these classes also have limited attack types, being as the vast majority of their attack options go after only one defense, AC.

Also, there is more than just numbers in 4E abilities. There are numerous effects, such as blindness, moving enemies, unhindered movement for the character, tricking foes into hitting their allies, helping allies recover from surprise, and so forth.

I expect a first level character to be able to competently deal with simpler traps, such as the sort first level characters would actually be facing. This is impossible as the static DC system gives them a 16% chance to deal with the trap properly, a 24% chance to find the trap and then set it off on themselves, and a 60% chance to never even see it coming, such that you were better off just herding sheep through the dungeon than taking the supposed professional. And since the thief wasn't good for anything but traps...

First level characters are neophytes, and still learning their basic skills (at least, this was the way in earlier editions before power creep smashed through the door). And if you think thieves weren't good for anything but traps, you have a very limited vision of it. Scouting, gathering information, using stealth to gain an advantage against enemies, getting wealth and resources...

Smokescreen. I cast Gust of Wind!

Player skill is a smokescreen? So we should forget about trying to play well, and just rely on the numbers on the character sheet?

Outright lie.

Nope. We went back and forth on your DM vs. player argument, then you sidestepped to other arguments.

Another outright lie.

Nope. Somebody pointed out that orbizards have been errata'd. You never responded to that.

Outright lie used to create a strawman. I said few, not any, and those few are countered by actually being good at ranged attacks.

Outright lie used to create a strawman. I said few, not any, and those few are countered by actually being good at ranged attacks.

Yes, I just posted the same thing twice. That's because that same false argument has been presented no less than three times already despite being solidly refuted as not what I actually said.

Every time you repeat the same lie I will hit ctrl + c one more time.

It wasn't a lie, it was a generalization. You are now using semantics to try to avoid the issue.

Nope.
Sorry, this is the game that breaks in half when enemies are intelligent. You aren't proving anything, because if the enemies truly are intelligent than their whole 'role' system just doesn't work.

That's odd, because in my campaign, the enemies are intelligent (except for the non or low sentience ones of course) and the game has not fallen apart yet. Online, I hear about many other campaigns that are also following this path.

1s don't crit fail. Nice try. Not that there is even a skill check to ride a horse.

A 1 isn't a critical fail, but it is an auto fail. When you're riding a fast moving horse and trying to do a complex action that prevents you from using your hands to hold onto/control the steed, it doesn't take much common sense to know failure to do so will have bad results.

Oh, by the way, there is a skill check to ride a horse, under nature (handle animal).

That's because I expect all these supposed experts to actually know more about 4th edition than I do, just as they claim they do. Likely a false assumption? Probably, but I'm at least giving the offenders a fair shot at proving me wrong. After all, someone got the Sirlin reference on the first try and that is more obscure.

But anyways, my answer is two words long. Astral Seal. 1-30 invulnerability. Have a nice day.

I believe it is far more likely that you aren't giving specific examples for your claims because there are none. For example, how is a first level character going to get anywhere close to 30 invulnerbility from Astral Seal, a healing ability? Don't just say 'figure it out for yourself', that would be a cop out.

SquelchHU

12-15-2009, 12:35 PM

Re: Level 1 thieves.

And the enemies first level characters face are not that great either.

To put your argument in other contexts:

Little league teams should not play good baseball against other little league teams.

Lightweight boxers should not have a significant chance of beating other lightweights of approximately the same level of training.

High school basketball players should not hold their own against rival high school teams.

Of course all of these arguments are absurd. While in all cases they would need more skill in order to deal with more skilled opponents they are amateurs that can handle other amateurs just fine.

Static DCs do not reflect this. They make you start with a pathetic success rate and only get good much later. Instead of starting out good against the easy stuff, and getting good against the harder stuff later.

Scouting has exactly the same flaw as trap disarming as there is again two checks, one for hiding in shadows and one for moving silently and failing either of these means you fail to go undetected.

They were most certainly worthless in combat, and not worthwhile for skills until later. Now a Fighter/Thief was something because Backstab was a damage multiplier. But a plain old Thief? No.

Re: Smokescreen.

Claiming the game was about ignoring the rules when the game is defined by the rules is a smokescreen. And even if you do find legitimate alternate means of going about things (sheep herder > thief for traps) it still raises the question of why bring a thief.

Re: Campaign falling apart.

So you say. Given that you're one of the people advocating having fun with a game by not playing it, I have a hard time trusting your judgment about anything gaming related.

Re: Auto fail skills on 1.

Lol, what? Pics or it didn't happen.

Re: 30 invulnerability.

Nope, you only need 30 endgame, as I said. At lower levels you need less. It really doesn't take much at all. You can get mid teens at level 5 and around 45-50 at level 21, easily more than enough.

Given that this is the game where the strongest poison in the game is just barely capable of killing a 1st level character under the best of conditions it shouldn't surprise anyone how easy it is to make your characters 'afk proof'.

clanqui

12-15-2009, 12:59 PM

RictrasShard

12-15-2009, 01:36 PM

Re: Level 1 thieves.

Per your examples; it would be more like someone training to become a baseball player, or a boxer, facing off against people who have already achieved the status. Nevertheless, if the DM thought the trap was fairly easy, all he/she had to do would be to give a situational modifier. Problem solved.

Scouting has exactly the same flaw as trap disarming as there is again two checks, one for hiding in shadows and one for moving silently and failing either of these means you fail to go undetected.

Unless, of course, the creatures were involved in activities that would make it less likely they noticed someone, which would often be the case.

They were most certainly worthless in combat, and not worthwhile for skills until later. Now a Fighter/Thief was something because Backstab was a damage multiplier. But a plain old Thief? No.

A first level thief was almost as effective in combat as a first level fighter.

Claiming the game was about ignoring the rules when the game is defined by the rules is a smokescreen.

This would be a good argument if I had ever claimed that. I didn't.

And even if you do find legitimate alternate means of going about things (sheep herder > thief for traps) it still raises the question of why bring a thief.

Future potential.

So you say. Given that you're one of the people advocating having fun with a game by not playing it, I have a hard time trusting your judgment about anything gaming related.

Since you are claiming I stated things that I didn't state, this actually makes you the one with suspect judgement.

Re: Auto fail skills on 1.

Lol, what? Pics or it didn't happen.

Failing rolls on a 1 has been a constant in the rules for as long as I remember. If you play D&D you are aware of this.

Re: 30 invulnerability.

Nope, you only need 30 endgame, as I said. At lower levels you need less. It really doesn't take much at all. You can get mid teens at level 5 and around 45-50 at level 21, easily more than enough.

Given that this is the game where the strongest poison in the game is just barely capable of killing a 1st level character under the best of conditions it shouldn't surprise anyone how easy it is to make your characters 'afk proof'.

As I recall, your initial claim was that you could make a first level character nearly invulnerable. I still have not seen you back up this claim, either with Astral Seal or anything else.

timberhick

12-15-2009, 01:47 PM

Well, of course I am. Given I have sales figures for several companies which show it in some detail. (Hi! I work in games)

And why would a long list of companies have any bearing on anything? Explain, in detail, remembering that miniature wargaming is a separate market with an clientele which only has a very partial overlap with that of the RPG industry. You'll always have B-list companies, that doesn't mean that in relative terms there are more A-list RPG companies than 2000. (And WWs RPG production is, per CCP, a "legacy business" ...they're on the way down by their own *design*)

Because you are letting your dislike of 4e color your whole perspective of the gaming industry as a whole.
WotC is so far ahead of the other "A-list companies" you are purporting, it is head scratching in it's naivety.

SquelchHU

12-15-2009, 04:26 PM

Of course static DC's are silly. They are one of the flaws of first ed (and god knows it had lots of them). However I strongly disagree that thieves in first were limited only to trap duty. Critters in first had far fewer hit points, giving a thieves backstab one hit kill ability against many tough mobs. Also, surprise in first was lethal. The trick in first wasn't that you didn't need a low level thief. The trick was keeping them alive long enough to actually get good at their job.

'Creatures have far fewer HP' includes 'you'. 1d6, no max at first level, max Con bonus at +2 with higher Con scores required to achieve that and a less generous stat system to obtain it, no other means of boosting your HP, all actions declared at the same time - you try to backstab, enemy sees you coming, reduces you to 0 or lower in one hit, you die instantly, as there was no 'incapacitated' status. Yes, that is a lot of commas. It's a long sequence that ends with 'dead thief' and 'laughing DM', because that's what the edition is all about.

Also you effectively have a BAB of 2/3rds instead of 3/4th, so lower accuracy as well.

Per your examples; it would be more like someone training to become a baseball player, or a boxer, facing off against people who have already achieved the status. Nevertheless, if the DM thought the trap was fairly easy, all he/she had to do would be to give a situational modifier. Problem solved.

Level 1 is the starting point, just as little league or a high school team is. Level 1 characters already know the basics, it's simply a matter of learning the more advanced stuff.

But let's say you give a situational modifier. +10%? Great, now the thief only epic fails 75% of the time instead of 84%.

+20%? Thief is still not disarming the trap the proper way (and instead setting it off) about 2 times out of 3.

+40%, effectively doubling his skill? He still blows the trap box 36% of the time.

Moral of the story: Multiple dice force binary results. 4th edition would do well to learn that, instead of printing non functional 'skill challenges' over and over.

Unless, of course, the creatures were involved in activities that would make it less likely they noticed someone, which would often be the case.

See above.

A first level thief was almost as effective in combat as a first level fighter.

I loled.

This would be a good argument if I had ever claimed that. I didn't.

Have you or have you not made any of the following claims at any point in time?

4th edition's combat system is functional.
4th edition's non combat system is functional.

If you have said yes to either of these then you followed it up with examples that involve not actually using it. Now I might be confusing you with one of the other misguided souls here, but I'm fairly certain you have indeed made claims to this effect.

Future potential.

Sheep herder remains effective. You have no reason to care, or to drag a gimp around that long, especially given how slow leveling is. Even when he gets up to 95%, the double check still makes him fail about 1 time in 10... which given the number of arbitrary instant death traps repeated over this many encounters...

Where's the SHEEP?

Failing rolls on a 1 has been a constant in the rules for as long as I remember. If you play D&D you are aware of this.

Attack rolls yes, saves yes, skills no. If you play D&D you are aware of this. 1 might or might not fail depending on modifier, but it does not automatically fail.

As I recall, your initial claim was that you could make a first level character nearly invulnerable. I still have not seen you back up this claim, either with Astral Seal or anything else.

Examples given at different levels. Really, I thought you've actually played 4th. Because if you did you would know the main stat that scales is enemy HP. Damage barely moves, which is why the strongest enemies and poisons in the game have trouble killing a level 1 character in one hit. As such you have an Astral Seal that's maybe a point or two lower than mid teens, and enemy damage is also a bit lower so you just spam it over and over and never die.

It's hardly the only means to become immortal, but it is available first.

clanqui

12-15-2009, 04:42 PM

Dawn_Falcon

12-15-2009, 08:59 PM

Because you are letting your dislike of 4e color your whole perspective of the gaming industry as a whole.
WotC is so far ahead of the other "A-list companies" you are purporting, it is head scratching in it's naivety.

Okay. So where are the supporting products? Where's the computer games? Where's the hype? Oh, it's conspicuously absent, and 4e has crashed and burned in sales in the UK (where I have a reasonable amount of sales data) in spectacular fashion. And of course it's not even competing for the online (PDF) market, it's basically surrendered that, and that's the only areas of RPG's which has shown significant growth for some years now.

It's amusing when people defend a tactic akin (in effectiveness, and effect on sales) to banning MP3's of your music, but hey.

Korvek

12-15-2009, 09:47 PM

As such you have an Astral Seal that's maybe a point or two lower than mid teens, and enemy damage is also a bit lower so you just spam it over and over and never die.

Well, that assumes several things that aren't common.

1) There can only be one enemy.
2) Only one ally is ever hurt.
3) No damage exceeds 12 points (at levels 28+).
4) You always hit (Yes, I'm aware of the bonuses AS grants)

Now, I'd like to see your explanation as to how to get 45-50 points worth of static invulnerability, as I'm truly curious.

timberhick

12-16-2009, 02:15 AM

Okay. So where are the supporting products? Where's the computer games? Where's the hype? Oh, it's conspicuously absent, and 4e has crashed and burned in sales in the UK (where I have a reasonable amount of sales data) in spectacular fashion. And of course it's not even competing for the online (PDF) market, it's basically surrendered that, and that's the only areas of RPG's which has shown significant growth for some years now.

It's amusing when people defend a tactic akin (in effectiveness, and effect on sales) to banning MP3's of your music, but hey.

So your proof is online PDF sales? Who woulda thunk online pdf sales was such a chunk...

Why not post your sales figures. I have a couple people I know in the UK who can confirm the validity of your sales figures.

Silvermane

12-16-2009, 03:50 AM

Uska

12-16-2009, 03:54 AM

ozreth

12-16-2009, 04:33 AM

I am amazed this thread is still going and hasnt been locked. I am one of those that loathes 4E but I am not going to knock those that play it if they enjoy it let them play, I am just glad they arent my gm or I would have to find a new group to play with.

Sooo I am pretty new to d&d. Played 3.5 several times around 2005 until my group of gaming friends all either sold out or moved. Now, 4 years later, I am looking to play regularly and teach some complete n00b friends the game. I am somewhat familiar enough with 3.5 to keep playing that but have been tempted to learn and play 4e instead because, well, its new and up to date and actually seems easier to teach. At the same time, looking through some of the rules it feels like they took a bit of heart out of d&d and definitely are trying to cater to the MMO crowd. After searchign the net for a few hours reading peoples opinions I stumbled upon this thread and read the entire thing...

Thanks to the clarity of the few 4e supporters here I have decided I am going to play 4e. It sounds very streamlined and less research heavy, which is what I imagined the game would be like 5 years ago when I first go the itch to play even if I do think power cards are silly.

Uska

12-16-2009, 04:49 AM

Sooo I am pretty new to d&d. Played 3.5 several times around 2005 until my group of gaming friends all either sold out or moved. Now, 4 years later, I am looking to play regularly and teach some complete n00b friends the game. I am somewhat familiar enough with 3.5 to keep playing that but have been tempted to learn and play 4e instead because, well, its new and up to date and actually seems easier to teach. At the same time, looking through some of the rules it feels like they took a bit of heart out of d&d and definitely are trying to cater to the MMO crowd. After searchign the net for a few hours reading peoples opinions I stumbled upon this thread and read the entire thing...

Thanks to the clarity of the few 4e supporters here I have decided I am going to play 4e. It sounds very streamlined and less research heavy, which is what I imagined the game would be like 5 years ago when I first go the itch to play even if I do think power cards are silly.

Well i you enjoy it more power to you, I will make a suggestion to you take a look at hackmaster basic.

SquelchHU

12-16-2009, 08:22 AM

Well, that assumes several things that aren't common.

1) There can only be one enemy.
2) Only one ally is ever hurt.
3) No damage exceeds 12 points (at levels 28+).
4) You always hit (Yes, I'm aware of the bonuses AS grants)

Now, I'd like to see your explanation as to how to get 45-50 points worth of static invulnerability, as I'm truly curious.

At level 28+ you're recovering 50+, when the strongest enemies in the game, who are encountered alone do just under 30.

Regardless, there is more than enough of an allowance on Astral Seal to cover focusing fire, and if the enemy doesn't do that they might as well be attacking their own feet.

So here's level 21. Obviously you pick the right race and the right stat etc, because you would be a total idiot not to.

2 (base) + 7 (wis) + 14 (cha x 2) + 4 (healer's chainmail) + 5 (healer's implement) + 4 (mace of healing) + 7 (epic gloves of the healer) + 4 (healer's brooch) = +47 hit points regained.

It should also be obvious where the room for improvement is later.

Dawn_Falcon

12-16-2009, 11:23 AM

So your proof is online PDF sales? Who woulda thunk online pdf sales was such a chunk...

Why not post your sales figures. I have a couple people I know in the UK who can confirm the validity of your sales figures.

No, online sales is part of the picture. WOTC had a good chunk of that, until one day they turned around and removed their presence in that market entirely. Since then it's continued to grow, with barely a blip from WOTC's action. Are you saying that this is evidence of things good for WOTC?

And they are not my sales figures, if they were mine I could post them. But they're not, they're other peoples and while I can talk about them, the details are unfortunately commercially confidential. That shouldn't come as a surprise.

Tallyn

12-16-2009, 12:42 PM

So your proof is online PDF sales? Who woulda thunk online pdf sales was such a chunk...

Why not post your sales figures. I have a couple people I know in the UK who can confirm the validity of your sales figures.

Not trying to bash you in any way here, but PDF sales are growing.... very quickly. If you have the ability, do some research on it. It's cheaper than buying books (which a lot of people like) and only marginally less safe for data storage (most sellers will allow you to download again once you've bought once, just in case your pdf gets lost or becomes corrupted).

I prefer good old fashioned books myself, but in the rest of my group all I hear about is "I got this PDF", or "I bought the book and get access to the PDF too"... so I am not sure how huge it is right at this moment, but I think it is going to be something that sellers will not be able to ignore in the future.

timberhick

12-17-2009, 12:39 AM

Not trying to bash you in any way here, but PDF sales are growing.... very quickly. If you have the ability, do some research on it. It's cheaper than buying books (which a lot of people like) and only marginally less safe for data storage (most sellers will allow you to download again once you've bought once, just in case your pdf gets lost or becomes corrupted).

I prefer good old fashioned books myself, but in the rest of my group all I hear about is "I got this PDF", or "I bought the book and get access to the PDF too"... so I am not sure how huge it is right at this moment, but I think it is going to be something that sellers will not be able to ignore in the future.

I realize that pdf sales are increasing, what dawn isn't understanding or not acknowledging is that hasbro wont let people get free product by going to all the various sights and downloading it illegally. The difference between the companies that dawn listed and WotC is tens of thousands of downloads illegally compared to hundreds.

Corebreach

12-17-2009, 03:09 AM

When you're riding a fast moving horse and trying to do a complex action that prevents you from using your hands to hold onto/control the steed, it doesn't take much common sense to know [skill check] failure to do so will have bad results.

Oh, by the way, there is a skill check to ride a horse, under nature (handle animal).
I've read that skill. It isn't used to ride. It's used to train and handle animals. It would be used to keep an ordinary farmhorse from galloping out of control if you're being run down by worgs or bolting if it gets shot by an arrow, but it is not used to make sure you can attack. 4E assumes anyone capable enough to be a PC can attack just fine from horseback. It's a heroic genre thing. You're perfectly allowed to require ersatz riding checks if you don't want to run a fast-and-loose high fantasy campaign (or if you just think it should be hard to shoot a bow & arrow at full gallop, since it is in real life), but that would be a house rule.

The only restrictions on mounted combat I could find in the 4E PHB & DMG are A) -2 to your attacks, AC, and Reflex if you don't have a saddle, and B) -2 to your mount's attacks if you let your mount attack instead of you and you lack the Mounted Combat feat.

Corebreach

12-17-2009, 03:34 AM

Failing rolls on a 1 has been a constant in the rules for as long as I remember.
The 3.0 PHB explicitly says neither natural 1 nor natural 20 mean anything special on skill rolls (p. 60). This rule is still in the 3.5 d20 SRD (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35).

I cannot find any written rule one way or the other on skill roll crits in the 4E PHB or DMG. I have found two posts on WotC's forums saying that's because there aren't any. So far as I can determine, only attack rolls have a "1 always misses, 20 always hits" rule, so only they work that way.

timberhick

12-17-2009, 10:34 AM

I've read that skill. It isn't used to ride. It's used to train and handle animals. It would be used to keep an ordinary farmhorse from galloping out of control if you're being run down by worgs or bolting if it gets shot by an arrow, but it is not used to make sure you can attack. 4E assumes anyone capable enough to be a PC can attack just fine from horseback. It's a heroic genre thing. You're perfectly allowed to require ersatz riding checks if you don't want to run a fast-and-loose high fantasy campaign (or if you just think it should be hard to shoot a bow & arrow at full gallop, since it is in real life), but that would be a house rule.

The only restrictions on mounted combat I could find in the 4E PHB & DMG are A) -2 to your attacks, AC, and Reflex if you don't have a saddle, and B) -2 to your mount's attacks if you let your mount attack instead of you and you lack the Mounted Combat feat.

Why would it be a house rule? The phb says about Nature and handle animal "calm down a natural beast, teach a natural beast some tricks, or otherwise handle a natural beast."

To counter some of squelch's issues the dmg says about mounts and combat "If you have any doubts about the effect that mounts have on the campaign, keep them on the sidelines or create story reasons to limit them."

The rules assume that you as a group will have no issues with mounted combat so there isn't much need to require skill checks to use mounts in combat, but it doesn't allow any old Gnome to hop on the nearest poodle and 'win' 4e as squelch is implying.

No reason why there wouldn't be skill checks during a combat when you are on a mount. The encounter dictates what will happen in the encounter. If that means using a skill check to coax your mount to go across the bridge, or through a ring of fire or anything that is involved in the encounter. If the players not on mounts have to make skill checks, that doesn't stop once they hop on the nearest mountable animal

Dawn_Falcon

12-17-2009, 01:51 PM

I realize that pdf sales are increasing, what dawn isn't understanding or not acknowledging is that hasbro wont let people get free product by going to all the various sights and downloading it illegally. The difference between the companies that dawn listed and WotC is tens of thousands of downloads illegally compared to hundreds.

Firstly, the gap isn't that big, secondly so the correct response to make sure that the only way people will be getting 3.5e PDF's is illegally? (simple stats show...yep, more people are downloading 3.5e PDF's )

Nice RIAA-style thinking.

This is what I do, timberhick - I work out the market before I make the games. Probably better at the market analysis, but I prefer making the games.

Corebreach

12-17-2009, 02:13 PM

Why would it be a house rule? The phb says about Nature and handle animal "calm down a natural beast, teach a natural beast some tricks, or otherwise handle a natural beast."
It would be a house rule because RictrasShard claimed a skill check is required specifically to attack while mounted without falling off. No such rule is in the rulebooks. Since the rulebooks cover several other drawbacks, penalties, and special cases of mounted combat, I think it's safe to say WotC deliberately omitted the need for such a check.

Besides, several core classes aren't even allowed to train the Nature skill. Under RS's interpretation, Fighters and Paladins aren't allowed to learn how to ride horses properly in 4E unless they burn a feat on Skill Training or they take a background option from PHB2 and say they grew up on a farm or in the woods or something. It doesn't make any sense that the only way to be good at shooting a bow from horseback is to be an expert on nature in general.

To counter some of squelch's issues the dmg says about mounts and combat "If you have any doubts about the effect that mounts have on the campaign, keep them on the sidelines or create story reasons to limit them."

The rules assume that you as a group will have no issues with mounted combat so there isn't much need to require skill checks to use mounts in combat, but it doesn't allow any old Gnome to hop on the nearest poodle and 'win' 4e as squelch is implying.
Squelch's very point is that some basic parts of the game are so flawed that the DM has to "keep them on the sidelines" entirely to avoid degenerate situations right from the get-go. It's not that he's "beat" the game, and it's not that they're insurmountable problems. It's that they're such serious and such fundamental problems.

No reason why there wouldn't be skill checks during a combat when you are on a mount. The encounter dictates what will happen in the encounter. If that means using a skill check to coax your mount to go across the bridge, or through a ring of fire or anything that is involved in the encounter. If the players not on mounts have to make skill checks, that doesn't stop once they hop on the nearest mountable animal
I agree with all of these and think they're totally legit, but only one specific situation was mentioned, and none of these are it.

Tallyn

12-17-2009, 05:31 PM

Squelch's very point is that some basic parts of the game are so flawed that the DM has to "keep them on the sidelines" entirely to avoid degenerate situations right from the get-go. It's not that he's "beat" the game, and it's not that they're insurmountable problems. It's that they're such serious and such fundamental problems.

Yes Corebreach, however, while you can debate this like a rational and intelligent human being (and I heartily thank you for your discussing this in a civil manner), Squelch comes off as arrogant, condescending and nearly fanatical in his views.

KokriMalange

12-18-2009, 09:13 AM

To be honest, I think 4e is just too simple to be successful by its lonesome and we all know finding the rare gem of real story in an mmo is a lot like finding a diamond at those tourist places in Arkansas.

Now Im not saying it wouldn't be an excellent game, actually, it'd probably be a spectacular game. Spectacular in the sense of a fireworks show. And I think that people really don't want simple rules. It almost feels like you're being treated like a child. That said, difficult is not complex and simple is not easy. So difficulty should be up to the player themselves as we all have different preferences in that matter.

:P They should do DDO(2) Paizo style. But Im sure that has been said before.

timberhick

12-18-2009, 01:26 PM

It would be a house rule because RictrasShard claimed a skill check is required specifically to attack while mounted without falling off. No such rule is in the rulebooks. Since the rulebooks cover several other drawbacks, penalties, and special cases of mounted combat, I think it's safe to say WotC deliberately omitted the need for such a check.

Besides, several core classes aren't even allowed to train the Nature skill. Under RS's interpretation, Fighters and Paladins aren't allowed to learn how to ride horses properly in 4E unless they burn a feat on Skill Training or they take a background option from PHB2 and say they grew up on a farm or in the woods or something. It doesn't make any sense that the only way to be good at shooting a bow from horseback is to be an expert on nature in general.
One of the benefits in 4e is that there a very few skills that can only be used by 'trained' individuals.
They also were smart in realizing that background should help in your skills.

Squelch's very point is that some basic parts of the game are so flawed that the DM has to "keep them on the sidelines" entirely to avoid degenerate situations right from the get-go. It's not that he's "beat" the game, and it's not that they're insurmountable problems. It's that they're such serious and such fundamental problems.
What squelch is ignoring in his rants about horse-archers is that you need The Perfect Storm, in order to make it viable. You needs lots of room to maneuver, classes that are effective at range, opponents without decent movement or mounts and no ranged attacks.
How many times in gaming has this happened?

I agree with all of these and think they're totally legit, but only one specific situation was mentioned, and none of these are it.
That's fine people are allowed to play the game differently, but the DMG does have a houserule about crit and fumbles on skill checks. It's in that section about taking the game and making your own.

SquelchHU

12-18-2009, 06:50 PM

What squelch is ignoring in his rants about horse-archers is that you need The Perfect Storm, in order to make it viable. You needs lots of room to maneuver, classes that are effective at range, opponents without decent movement or mounts and no ranged attacks.
How many times in gaming has this happened?

Let's see...

Lots of room: It's called outside.
Classes effective at range: Admittedly few in 4th, but since the best parties are 4 clones and a warlord or cleric or something all you have to do is make the clones rangers.
Opponents without decent movement: Quite a few, since it's a game that breaks when you go outside.
No ranged attacks: Describes 90-95% of the MM.

This isn't a perfect storm, it is a very common and reasonable circumstance that the game is completely incapable of handling. It would be like a 3.5 game being unable to handle casting a spell. Not the effects of the spell, but the casting thereof.

It hasn't happened often in gaming, but that's one more reason why 4th is a blight to gaming.

That's fine people are allowed to play the game differently, but the DMG does have a houserule about crit and fumbles on skill checks. It's in that section about taking the game and making your own.

Emphasis mine.

Dawn_Falcon

12-18-2009, 07:14 PM

One of the benefits in 4e is that there a very few skills that can only be used by 'trained' individuals.

To be fair, this is also something Pathfinder has addressed.

timberhick

12-19-2009, 12:03 PM

Let's see...

Lots of room: It's called outside.
Classes effective at range: Admittedly few in 4th, but since the best parties are 4 clones and a warlord or cleric or something all you have to do is make the clones rangers.
Opponents without decent movement: Quite a few, since it's a game that breaks when you go outside.
No ranged attacks: Describes 90-95% of the MM.

This isn't a perfect storm, it is a very common and reasonable circumstance that the game is completely incapable of handling. It would be like a 3.5 game being unable to handle casting a spell. Not the effects of the spell, but the casting thereof.

It hasn't happened often in gaming, but that's one more reason why 4th is a blight to gaming.

Again.
You imply it is so easy.
It doesn't work like you so desperately want it to.
Show me a group who will actually play 4 rangers and your astral seal spamming cleric, convinces their DM to have 100% of the encounters 'outside', use no opponents with decent movement, and no ranged attacks either.

I would question the ability of a DM who is going to have these 'outside' encounters with no means of movement or ranged attacks. Unless fighting bears and boars, woops they gots speeds of 8, unless fighting shambling mounds for 27 levels seems interesting and/or 'kewl' to this hypothetical group....
It doesn't work.

RictrasShard

12-19-2009, 05:11 PM

'Creatures have far fewer HP' includes 'you'. 1d6, no max at first level, max Con bonus at +2 with higher Con scores required to achieve that and a less generous stat system to obtain it, no other means of boosting your HP, all actions declared at the same time - you try to backstab, enemy sees you coming, reduces you to 0 or lower in one hit, you die instantly, as there was no 'incapacitated' status. Yes, that is a lot of commas. It's a long sequence that ends with 'dead thief' and 'laughing DM', because that's what the edition is all about.

DM's Guide, page 82 (Zero Hit Points):

When any creature is brought to 0 hit points (optionally as low as -3 hit points if from the same blow which brought the total to 0), it is unconscious.

Level 1 is the starting point, just as little league or a high school team is. Level 1 characters already know the basics, it's simply a matter of learning the more advanced stuff.

In first edition, it was established repeatedly that first level characters are still learning the basics.

I loled.

Laugh all you want, it is true. A first level thief has the same thaco as a first level fighter, and has comparable weapons.

Have you or have you not made any of the following claims at any point in time?

4th edition's combat system is functional.
4th edition's non combat system is functional.

If you have said yes to either of these then you followed it up with examples that involve not actually using it. Now I might be confusing you with one of the other misguided souls here, but I'm fairly certain you have indeed made claims to this effect.

So using house rules invalidates a system? In that case, why aren't you as critical about 3.5?

Sheep herder remains effective. You have no reason to care, or to drag a gimp around that long, especially given how slow leveling is.

So in your 3.5 games, when you start at first level, you exclude spellcasters from the party?

Attack rolls yes, saves yes, skills no. If you play D&D you are aware of this. 1 might or might not fail depending on modifier, but it does not automatically fail.

For the sake of argument, let's pretend you are right about this. Riding a galloping horse, without using your hands to hold onto or control it, while using a bow, will have a DC at least in the high teens. Even if the average Nature skill of your party members is +14, you are still going to fail on a roll of less than 4. It will not be long before someone rolls less than 4.

Examples given at different levels. Really, I thought you've actually played 4th. Because if you did you would know the main stat that scales is enemy HP. Damage barely moves, which is why the strongest enemies and poisons in the game have trouble killing a level 1 character in one hit. As such you have an Astral Seal that's maybe a point or two lower than mid teens, and enemy damage is also a bit lower so you just spam it over and over and never die.

I just went over the chart in the Monster Manual, starting with the most powerful creatures and going down. I got to the twelve creature before I found one that does less than 30 damage in one hit, Doresain the Ghoul King, who has an attack that does 1d8 +10 plus slowing the target. Of course, he can potentially hit every party member with that attack in a round.

I got to the 22nd creature before I found another, Lich Vestige. Of course, that is a minion.

At level 28+ you're recovering 50+, when the strongest enemies in the game, who are encountered alone do just under 30.

Regardless, there is more than enough of an allowance on Astral Seal to cover focusing fire, and if the enemy doesn't do that they might as well be attacking their own feet.

So here's level 21. Obviously you pick the right race and the right stat etc, because you would be a total idiot not to.

2 (base) + 7 (wis) + 14 (cha x 2) + 4 (healer's chainmail) + 5 (healer's implement) + 4 (mace of healing) + 7 (epic gloves of the healer) + 4 (healer's brooch) = +47 hit points regained.

It should also be obvious where the room for improvement is later.

Whoever wrote that example is presuming that the party has numerous rare magic items in their possession. The number of parties that actually have all of these items is quite low.

Even if the party does have all these things, Astral Seal doesn't give invulnerbility. It only heals damage that a character has already taken.

I've read that skill. It isn't used to ride. It's used to train and handle animals.

Riding a horse is handling an animal.

Vadoris

12-19-2009, 08:34 PM

Disagree completely. It is my opinion that 4.0e is nothing more than a money-grab and has resulted in an abomination hardly recognizable as DnD.

This is, of course, only my opinion.

Its only money grabbing if you buy it. I have the PHB, DMG, MM, and i don't need anything else. If you have to buy more then that, then you don't understand D&D.

"Aside from a copy of this book, very little is needed to play the AD&D game."-David Cook, AD&D PHB

Corebreach

12-20-2009, 05:20 AM

For the sake of argument, let's pretend you are right about this. Riding a galloping horse, without using your hands to hold onto or control it, while using a bow, will have a DC at least in the high teens.
What if it's not galloping when you shoot?

I've re-read the rules a couple of times and come to another discovery. Shooting while mounted is abstracted the same way as shooting on foot. You "walk" some (rulebook word, not mine), stop, fire, and start moving again on your next turn. It's a less realistic simulation of mounted combat than it is of unmounted, but it seems a deliberate simplification. The rules do not attempt to simulate the mount moving continuously throughout the round on a standard "move" action. The DMG explicitly says the rider and mount share a single set of actions rather than acting independently, with the only exception being independent and separate attacks if the mount is intelligent (and even then, only if the DM permits it, since he is also instructed to counterbalance the advantage this gives by adding more enemies to the encounter and reducing the encounter's XP).

So by the rules as printed, if you're on your riding horse and go "move 10 and shoot", the horse is only walking, and it isn't moving when you draw that bowstring back. The situation you claim necessitates a Ride skill check officially does not occur. If you require one to make the game more realistic, you're using a house rule.

If you go "run 12 and shoot", the horse is galloping. Maybe it's constant, maybe it isn't. I'll freely admit that "constant" makes far more sense when talking about mounts. However, it turns out it doesn't matter. There's already a penalty for running! Running gives you -5 to-hit, and gives combat advantage to all your enemies, until your next turn starts. There's nothing in the book about running on a mount needing an extra penalty.

You aren't allowed to have the horse double-walk 20 or double-run 24 plus do an attack yourself in the same round, barring burning an Action Point.

RictrasShard

12-20-2009, 11:33 AM

What if it's not galloping when you shoot?

The premise of Squelch's argument is that the horse is racing away from the enemies while the rider shoots at them with a bow.

Griphon

12-20-2009, 11:36 AM

timberhick

12-20-2009, 05:52 PM

Depends on what you think D&D is I guess.

SquelchHU

12-21-2009, 08:32 AM

Its only money grabbing if you buy it. I have the PHB, DMG, MM, and i don't need anything else. If you have to buy more then that, then you don't understand D&D.

"Aside from a copy of this book, very little is needed to play the AD&D game."-David Cook, AD&D PHB

4th edition = everything is core. Nice try though.

The premise of Squelch's argument is that the horse is racing away from the enemies while the rider shoots at them with a bow.

Which only requires the horse be as fast or faster, which does not necessarily require moving at full speed.

Again.
You imply it is so easy.
It doesn't work like you so desperately want it to.
Show me a group who will actually play 4 rangers and your astral seal spamming cleric, convinces their DM to have 100% of the encounters 'outside', use no opponents with decent movement, and no ranged attacks either.

I would question the ability of a DM who is going to have these 'outside' encounters with no means of movement or ranged attacks. Unless fighting bears and boars, woops they gots speeds of 8, unless fighting shambling mounds for 27 levels seems interesting and/or 'kewl' to this hypothetical group....
It doesn't work.

Any group who wants the grind to be manageable and yet is trying to play grind edition anyways.

Having 100% of the encounters outside is as simple as staying outside themselves, therefore everything they run into will also be outside.

Having no opponents with decent movement is called 'game not functioning outside of closets' which we have already established.

Skipping past more nonsensical statements about the 'in training' PCs being inferior to even mook enemies instead of said mook enemies being their roughly equal sparring partners for practice.

So using house rules invalidates a system? In that case, why aren't you as critical about 3.5?

Using house rules invalidates an argument about the actual rules.

Here is an example.

Squelch: 4th edition cannot handle x, y, and z. *reasons*
Rictras: Sure it can, you just have to pretend x, y, and z are actually *things they are not*.

At which point you immediately forfeit the argument.

So in your 3.5 games, when you start at first level, you exclude spellcasters from the party?

You are absolutely hilarious.

A 1st level 3.5 caster can win 2-3 encounters a day by themselves. While 2-3 is less than 4, it is also substantially more than 1. So no, they are not gimps as they are demonstrably able to pull their weight. It is possible for them to win 4 or even 5 in this way, but 2-3 is most typical.

I just went over the chart in the Monster Manual, starting with the most powerful creatures and going down. I got to the twelve creature before I found one that does less than 30 damage in one hit, Doresain the Ghoul King, who has an attack that does 1d8 +10 plus slowing the target. Of course, he can potentially hit every party member with that attack in a round.

I got to the 22nd creature before I found another, Lich Vestige. Of course, that is a minion.

Which means you went through a lot of trouble to prove... yes, the strongest enemies in the game can kill the weakest PCs in the game in 1 hit. Except you still didn't because 30 won't kill, and that's a special olympics style argument in any case.

Whoever wrote that example is presuming that the party has numerous rare magic items in their possession. The number of parties that actually have all of these items is quite low.

Sorry, DM has to give PCs any items they ask for or the game breaks. All that is required is for said players to know what they are doing and they will have all that they desire.

Even if the party does have all these things, Astral Seal doesn't give invulnerbility. It only heals damage that a character has already taken.

And the mobs can't one round a PC even if they focus fire, though you still want them not focusing fire because of the way HP damage works, regardless you can just press your lol win button with Astral Seal.

Riding a horse is handling an animal.

That's what she said! :D

rezo

12-21-2009, 08:38 AM

I think 4th is going trying to go back to 2nd ed. I don't like 3rd main because it's to ez to power game. Sorry, 3rd sucks. lol

RictrasShard

12-21-2009, 08:59 AM

4th edition = everything is core. Nice try though.

In fourth edition, as in every other edition, only the three main books, (PHB, DMG, MM) are core.

Which only requires the horse be as fast or faster, which does not necessarily require moving at full speed.

A walking horse has around the same speed as a walking man. It will have to run to outrace most of the enemies it can get away from.

Skipping past more nonsensical statements about the 'in training' PCs being inferior to even mook enemies instead of said mook enemies being their roughly equal sparring partners for practice.

In other words, skipping past stuff which you have no answer for, except for trying to change what the argument was about.

Using house rules invalidates an argument about the actual rules.

Nope. House rules have been part of the actual rules for around ten years now.

You are absolutely hilarious.

A 1st level 3.5 caster can win 2-3 encounters a day by themselves.

I presented this statement to the 3.5 players I know. They laughed.

Which means you went through a lot of trouble to prove... yes, the strongest enemies in the game can kill the weakest PCs in the game in 1 hit.

You claimed they couldn't. I proved you wrong.

Sorry, DM has to give PCs any items they ask for or the game breaks. All that is required is for said players to know what they are doing and they will have all that they desire.

Sorry, the game doesn't work that way, no matter how many times you claim it does.

And the mobs can't one round a PC even if they focus fire, though you still want them not focusing fire because of the way HP damage works, regardless you can just press your lol win button with Astral Seal.

Except for rare exceptions, a single enemy of comparable threat shouldn't be able to take down a PC in one round. If it is an enemy group focussing fire, they certainly will take down a PC in one round in the majority of cases, provided the dice rolls don't go bad for them. And as I stated earlier, Astral Seal doesn't prevent damage, it just heals damage, provided the PC is able to take advantage of it.

Garbudo

12-21-2009, 09:13 AM

ah DnD 1.0 ,1.5 , 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 , 3.5, 4.0 "Ah gimme your money" its just a way to change one or 2 things in a book so you have to spend $29.95-$39.95 US/CAN on a new book "I just sold all my 3.5's for 5 bucks each cause 4.0 came out" Should have stuck with 3.5 you knew the rules so why change a good thing? I prefer combat with minis not on a Pc thats what DDO is for. Keep the game the way it is its not dying why change a good thing?

hassoc

12-21-2009, 09:40 AM

Wow...there is nothing about 4.0 Dnd that I like. In all fairness I did take it out for a test drive, but this was mainly at the urging of my friends and family. I have been there for the various incarnations (1,2 and 3, and 3.5)and have been ok with them, but this latest one is not Dnd....You know they can build **** and slap a label on it, but it still ****. So if and when they decide to implement Dnd 4.0 I guess I will have to pack it up and find something else worthy of my time.

timberhick

12-21-2009, 10:56 AM

4th edition = everything is core. Nice try though.
WotC said the same thing for 3e. What's your point? It was the playerbase that came up with the idea that the phb,dmg,mm was core only.

Which only requires the horse be as fast or faster, which does not necessarily require moving at full speed. Riding horse spd 10, warhorse spd 8. Orc spd6/8{while charging} Orcs will out move horses unless horses double move.

Any group who wants the grind to be manageable and yet is trying to play grind edition anyways.
Perhaps there are people/groups out there who prefer to play a game where the group doesn't stand around until the spellcasters save or die sticks? Perhaps there is more than one way to roleplay?

Having 100% of the encounters outside is as simple as staying outside themselves, therefore everything they run into will also be outside.
Or the group actually works together to play the game? Maybe the way you play is like you describe, but did you think that not everyone will play this very weird game you are trying to describe? Are the PCs now some kind of roving bandits?

Having no opponents with decent movement is called 'game not functioning outside of closets' which we have already established.
You have? Soundsmore like squelch said it is so without any proof. When asked for proof he never responds.

Skipping past more nonsensical statements about the 'in training' PCs being inferior to even mook enemies instead of said mook enemies being their roughly equal sparring partners for practice.Your blinders you have for the failings of 3e, but are more than willing to denounce against 4e....

Using house rules invalidates an argument about the actual rules.
House rules have been a part of the game since it was first made. Every single edition has told you 'to take the game and make it your own' it wasn't until this new crop of players, like you, who came along in 3e where everything is RAW...RAW is all there can be nothing but RAW. Sad day for gaming when it happened.

Here is an example.

Squelch: 4th edition cannot handle x, y, and z. *reasons*
Rictras: Sure it can, you just have to pretend x, y, and z are actually *things they are not*.

At which point you immediately forfeit the argument.
You haven't given a single thing 4e 'cannot handle' You premise is and has been 'on the fourth Saturday of the second month in the year of the gamer when the sun is at it's zenith' the game doesn't work, or there is no I win button, but the real reason has always been it's not 3e

You are absolutely hilarious.

A 1st level 3.5 caster can win 2-3 encounters a day by themselves. While 2-3 is less than 4, it is also substantially more than 1. So no, they are not gimps as they are demonstrably able to pull their weight. It is possible for them to win 4 or even 5 in this way, but 2-3 is most typical.
Really? Why not prove this statement. Or are you going to do your typical 'I wont you all to look for the knowledge' garbage again?

Which means you went through a lot of trouble to prove... yes, the strongest enemies in the game can kill the weakest PCs in the game in 1 hit. Except you still didn't because 30 won't kill, and that's a special olympics style argument in any case.
Don't know what MM you have access to but the level 1 goblins all have less than 30hp. Oh I see, when proven wrong now its just a special olympic case, funny you were the one who brought it up.

Sorry, DM has to give PCs any items they ask for or the game breaks. All that is required is for said players to know what they are doing and they will have all that they desire.
dmg page 125 "A great way to make sure you give players magic items they’ll be excited about is to ask them for wish lists." Notice the verbage, 'a great way' not 'you have to'

And the mobs can't one round a PC even if they focus fire, though you still want them not focusing fire because of the way HP damage works, regardless you can just press your lol win button with Astral Seal.
Can't one round a PC? You have proof of this? Or is this again going to be one of those times where, because you say it, it is so?

Krag

12-21-2009, 08:56 PM

And the mobs can't one round a PC even if they focus fire, though you still want them not focusing fire because of the way HP damage works, regardless you can just press your lol win button with Astral Seal.

You are not joking, aren't you?
Because healing 50 damage at EPIC tier is... laughable. You obviously don't have even the slightest idea what epic characters are capable of.

SquelchHU

12-23-2009, 07:53 AM

And in typical fashion my words get warped more and more by the opposition, such that what you claim I say has no bearing on what I actually said.

I presented this statement to the 3.5 players I know. They laughed.

Thereby demonstrating their ignorance.

Sleep: Encounter over.
Color Spray: Encounter over.
Entangle: Encounter over.

This is all at level 1. Particularly noteworthy is that Entangle is the best level 1 spell in the game despite the stiff competition it faces from Sleep and Color Spray. Further, you can cast 2-3 such spells typically and up to 4 or 5 in some cases so yes you indeed win 2-3 encounters by yourself.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps there are people/groups out there who prefer to play a game where the group doesn't stand around until the spellcasters save or die sticks? Perhaps there is more than one way to roleplay?

Then they can try not playing D&D, or perhaps playing a video game (which makes the grind in real time, and thus manageable).

Or the group actually works together to play the game? Maybe the way you play is like you describe, but did you think that not everyone will play this very weird game you are trying to describe? Are the PCs now some kind of roving bandits?

Which means 4 archers and a Warlord or Cleric. QED. Whereas a group not working together to play the game will have melee and ranged, and they will constantly step on each other's toes.

As for the roving bandits bit, the PCs have always been people who break into intelligent creature's homes and steal their personal belongings and only get a moral pass for it because their victims happen to have green skin. So yes they are 'now' some kind of roving bandits. Welcome to three decades ago. They are also racists of the highest order. So glad you could finally join us in D&D land. Would you like a Ring of Sustenance with that Rope Trick?

You have? Soundsmore like squelch said it is so without any proof. When asked for proof he never responds.

Your blinders you have for the failings of 3e, but are more than willing to denounce against 4e....

Bad liar. Stop lying.

Skipping past more lies, warping of statements into nonsense speak, and general idiocy that is SOP for those who play Abomination Edition.

irivan

12-23-2009, 08:24 AM

RictrasShard

12-23-2009, 09:16 AM

And in typical fashion my words get warped more and more by the opposition, such that what you claim I say has no bearing on what I actually said.

This is what you are doing, not us.

Thereby demonstrating their ignorance.

I don't have the 3.5 PHB in front of me, but I'm fairly sure the 3E one will do for the following spell examples.

Sleep: Encounter over.

Only affects 2d4 HD. Some are going to make their save.

Color Spray: Encounter over.

Only affects 1d6 creatures. Any creatures that have 3 or more HD are going to be hindered, but not defeated. Some are going to make their save.

Entangle: Encounter over.

Only affects creatures in a 40 foot radius, if there are plants in the area. Doesn't defeat enemies, only hinders them. Some are going to make their save.

Bad liar. Stop lying.

As you have demonstrated repeatedly over the weeks, he is not lying.

Skipping past more lies, warping of statements into nonsense speak, and general idiocy that is SOP for those who play Abomination Edition.

I'm not fond of 3.5, but calling it the abomination edition isn't fair, in my opinion. :P

irivan

12-23-2009, 09:22 AM

Dude if 3.5 is the abomination edition, what is 4.0?

The ultimate BS edition? Dnd for 6 year olds?

Give me a break.

timberhick

12-23-2009, 11:53 AM

Do not change to 4.0, please, dear god, noooooooooooooooooo

DnD reached its pinnacle in 3.5 and i have no desire to see DDO turned into MTG (Magic the Gathering) MMO

In fact why doesn't WOC just issue licenses for that and stop tooling around with my favorite game?

Or better yet have 4.0 and all, but keep 3.5 and 2nd editions as optional licenses and games that they still support.

Personally i think a rollback to 2nd edition wouldn't hurt the hurt game at all, it would be fun!

Either way, 4.0 sucks in every possible way, and i want nothing to do with it.
Why did D&D reach it's zenith with 3.5?
What is soooooo special about 3.5 that it trumps all other editions?

Dude if 3.5 is the abomination edition, what is 4.0?

The ultimate BS edition? Dnd for 6 year olds?

Give me a break.
4e is a different edition of D&D, evidently you do not like it. and from what you say, what you like is more important than what anyone likes and we should be forced to like what you like.
Thankfully that is not the case.

timberhick

12-23-2009, 12:16 PM

And in typical fashion my words get warped more and more by the opposition, such that what you claim I say has no bearing on what I actually said.
Perhaps if you would do a wee bit more in the explanation department, we would not keep 'warping' your words?

Thereby demonstrating their ignorance.

Sleep: Encounter over.
Color Spray: Encounter over.
Entangle: Encounter over.

This is all at level 1. Particularly noteworthy is that Entangle is the best level 1 spell in the game despite the stiff competition it faces from Sleep and Color Spray. Further, you can cast 2-3 such spells typically and up to 4 or 5 in some cases so yes you indeed win 2-3 encounters by yourself.
All have variables in either how many are effected, allowing saves, or in usage.
Wonder why you are allowed to use such variables, but when you pander 4e, such variables are not to be used?

Then they can try not playing D&D, or perhaps playing a video game (which makes the grind in real time, and thus manageable).
Oh, I see. You play the One True Way, which of course is how D&D is played, everyone else is playing something that is not D&D.
Strange then that your only explanation of this One True Way, is non-spellcasters after level 5 suck and advanced tactical play is spells.
Any other pointers in this One True Way besides these?

Which means 4 archers and a Warlord or Cleric. QED. Whereas a group not working together to play the game will have melee and ranged, and they will constantly step on each other's toes.
Sounds like it's a group issue about not working together and not an edition issue.
I have 6 people currently playing in my 4e game and they, strangely enough, do not step all over each others toes. They,omg, actually work together really well. Must be a fluke or something, I guess....

As for the roving bandits bit, the PCs have always been people who break into intelligent creature's homes and steal their personal belongings and only get a moral pass for it because their victims happen to have green skin. So yes they are 'now' some kind of roving bandits. Welcome to three decades ago. They are also racists of the highest order. So glad you could finally join us in D&D land. Would you like a Ring of Sustenance with that Rope Trick?
Perhaps that is how you play in the One True Way, I guess I must be doing something wrong, but I grew out of what you describe nearly two decades ago. Perhaps after you grow up a bit more, get some more game systems under your belt, you'll come to a similar understanding. Though I seriously doubt it

Bad liar. Stop lying.

Skipping past more lies, warping of statements into nonsense speak, and general idiocy that is SOP for those who play Abomination Edition.
Really?

Child, Please

RictrasShard

12-23-2009, 01:06 PM

Dude if 3.5 is the abomination edition, what is 4.0?

You notice how I stated that in jest? And also that I didn't actually call it the abomination edition?

Unlike several other people in this thread, such as yourself, if I hear of people playing a different version of D&D, I don't feel the need to cry out that the other version is the ultimate evil, and that people who play it are stupid children.

Dawn_Falcon

12-23-2009, 07:38 PM

Why did D&D reach it's zenith with 3.5?
What is soooooo special about 3.5 that it trumps all other editions?

Nothing, but 4e is a completely different game which only shares the same name. Heck, they've gone out their way to make the settings feel very different.

timberhick

12-24-2009, 12:05 AM

Nothing, but 4e is a completely different game which only shares the same name. Heck, they've gone out their way to make the settings feel very different.
I haven't noticed the changes in settings. I don't play in published settings, so can't comment on it.

Still have hitpoints, AC saves, dagger, shortsword, and longsword still do d4, d6, and d8, still have classes races still have modifiers. I guess I just do not see the huge difference some people do in the new system.

quickgrif

12-24-2009, 01:13 AM

I haven't noticed the changes in settings. I don't play in published settings, so can't comment on it.

Still have hitpoints, AC saves, dagger, shortsword, and longsword still do d4, d6, and d8, still have classes races still have modifiers. I guess I just do not see the huge difference some people do in the new system.

They changed the game mechanics. All you need to do is look at the classes such as healing surge or how spells are cast now.

Dawn_Falcon

12-24-2009, 01:44 AM

I guess I just do not see the huge difference some people do in the new system.

I actually did a blind test with three player who used to play D&D 1-2 a lot, and one had played a couple of games of 3rd. I used Pathfinder (early beta), one of my variant d20 systems* and 4th. I told them that one was an third party updated version of the rules, that one was D&D's new edition and one was mine. Two thought that Pathfinder was the D&D product and one thought mine was.

I'll agree it's not conclusive without a larger sample size, but it is indicative as far as I'm concerned. They expressed the belief that the ruleset they didn't know was 4th came from a company which usually did miniature games, not RPG ones. They were...pretty shocked when I told them otherwise.

(*Among other things, a nice system for handling disposable "henchmen", spell points rather than slots, sequenced "combat manoeuvres" for melee combat and rolling a lot of specials into attribute damage effects. I actually don't consider it a particular success, but I thought it'd be useful for the test...I typically do scifi d20 work which would be obviously non-D&D base)

Krag

12-24-2009, 03:44 AM

I'm surprised players noticed any difference between 3.5 and Pathfinder at all. Because there isn't any.

Uska

12-24-2009, 03:51 AM

I'm surprised players noticed any difference between 3.5 and Pathfinder at all. Because there isn't any.

That is a false statement, although the differnces are much less then there are between 2nd and 3rd or 3.x and 4th.

Dawn_Falcon

12-24-2009, 04:56 AM

I'm surprised players noticed any difference between 3.5 and Pathfinder at all. Because there isn't any.

Ah, but I didn't give them 3.5 and two of them were not familiar with 3rd edition at all. I agree that Pathfinder is essentially 3.75, mind you :)

(To be clear, I did a text dump of parts of the rules from PDF and printed them out. Within the legal limits for photocopying in the UK, don't worry :p)

Also, well, I'd remind people who think D&D utterly dominates the PnP scene that if Wizards hadn't stepped in in 1998, they'd of been defunct. The team behind D&D is also nothing like the size they once were - this is a direct result of the OGL, in many ways: They had a smaller team, working primarily on high-margin rule products with a number of largely outsourced campaign worlds, while the low-volume ecosystem was left to third parties.

The massive, unwieldy beast of the second edition days which created anything and everything is gone, many of it's members scattered to other companies which have done quite well by the OGL.

timberhick

12-24-2009, 12:47 PM

I guess, with me having played so many different rpgs, I just do not see such a huge difference between the editions that others do. I see a growth to the editions. I was musing a while back to another gamer and said something along the lines of "Hey welcome to the modern time there D&D, took you long enough". To me it shows what happens when something was a slave to what was, instead of looking to what is going on now. It's not like the people who do think 3.5 is the pinnacle of gaming do not have oodles and oodles of material they can go through. There is literally decades of material out there for them to incorporate into their games.
One of my old gamestore owners, has been gaming with his college friends since '84, they meet once a month now. He showed me the material he still wants to take the group through that they haven't gotten to yet. It was over a foot high. WotC put out something like 105 books for 3.5? I seriously doubt there are groups out there who have gone through all of it.

I've never understood the need or desire to pander something you do not like. "It's not to my tastes" never seems to be enough. It has to be months long ranting about how bad it is, I guess that is why there is so much stress now in society. Dwelling upon something that makes your teeth itch, hair bleed, bile rise for that amount of time can't be good for you.

clanqui

12-24-2009, 02:03 PM

Well, having had a chance to get into them now, they aren't that bad as a game. I'm just not sure they are D&D to me. There are just some decisions that seem like they were intended to **** off old players. Especially making such drastic changes to the base list of races and classes in the PHB, which had been almost a sacred cow through all the prior editions. That was just too obviously a way to sell more PHB 2's. Same with the spell lists.

I'm not terribly fond of the "keep buying new versions of your old powers every level approach" or multi classing, but they do work. The one thing I really hate are the fake aggro mechanics. They are a pet peeve in MMO's, but I bite the bullet because I understand the limits of computer AI, but mob sheepherding has no place in a game where a live person is controlling the bad guys!

Anyhoo, probably nothing new there, but I did have fun with the munchkins.

drac317

12-24-2009, 02:34 PM

No, it's not. It's fact, and is shared by a VAST majority of intelligent life forms on the face of this planet.

EDIT: He also wanted to hear consequeneces. The consequences of updating this game to 4.0 will be that every single person with an IQ above 80 will leave this game faster than a fat man can eat a twinkie.

1.8 seconds.....just timed a 400+lb former pro-wrestler named Demonseed.

btw,Demoyn he once burned down a bar in ur home town.

Dawn_Falcon

12-24-2009, 04:19 PM

WotC put out something like 105 books for 3.5? I seriously doubt there are groups out there who have gone through all of it.

And no longer in print, so much of it is either unavailable or expensive as heck. It was available as PDF-format downloads, but then one day Wizards turned round and pulled those so you can no longer get them*. The sales of older 3.x material had been rising, incidentally.

(*Well, legally. Deliberately not commenting further on that)

And yes, clanqui, the 4e agro mechanics are silly.

RictrasShard

12-24-2009, 05:45 PM

And no longer in print, so much of it is either unavailable or expensive as heck.

If you don't mind shopping online, you can likely find just about any 3.5 book for a decent price.

timberhick

12-25-2009, 01:11 AM

If you don't mind shopping online, you can likely find just about any 3.5 book for a decent price.

Or if your lgs has used books or a used book store.

I picked up 7 1e books(80$) between both of those places last month, have no ideas why I did it, but it's nice to look through them again.

RictrasShard

12-25-2009, 02:23 AM

Or if your lgs has used books or a used book store.

I picked up 7 1e books(80$) between both of those places last month, have no ideas why I did it, but it's nice to look through them again.

I was lucky. I have all the 1E hardcovers we used as teenagers, and a few years ago I managed to pick up the ones we didn't have. Sometime in the next couple of years, I plan to run the gang through the Temple of Elemental Evil, then the Demonqueen series.

Corebreach

12-27-2009, 10:42 PM

[three players who used to play D&D 1-2 a lot] expressed the belief that the ruleset they didn't know was 4th came from a company which usually did miniature games, not RPG ones.
I'm not sure this proves anything except that 4E is Working As Intended. 4th Edition shows too much influence from the D&D Miniatures Game to be accidental.

RictrasShard

12-29-2009, 11:56 AM

4E does have similarities to the miniatures game. I don't see a problem with this.

Dawn_Falcon

12-29-2009, 04:57 PM

I'm not sure this proves anything except that 4E is Working As Intended. 4th Edition shows too much influence from the D&D Miniatures Game to be accidental.

It's a different market to the previous D&D games, and one which I (for one) am significantly less interested in. I get my miniatures fix from Battletech (Megamek), not D&D.

RictrasShard

12-30-2009, 11:40 PM

It's a different market to the previous D&D games, and one which I (for one) am significantly less interested in. I get my miniatures fix from Battletech (Megamek), not D&D.

That's perfectly reasonable. Remember, though, if you wanted to play any edition of D&D using miniatures, there is no reason why you couldn't use your Battletech figures.

Uska

12-31-2009, 02:05 AM

I'm not sure this proves anything except that 4E is Working As Intended. 4th Edition shows too much influence from the D&D Miniatures Game to be accidental.

I have been using miniatures for d&d since I started in 1975 so you statment means nothing.

GramercyRiff

12-31-2009, 02:22 AM

Wow, this is still going on...

I have been using miniatures for d&d since I started in 1975 so you statment means nothing.

You're doing it wrong.:D

Uska

12-31-2009, 02:24 AM

Wow, this is still going on...

You're doing it wrong.:D

Hard to break a 35 year old habit:D

Dawn_Falcon

12-31-2009, 12:10 PM

That's perfectly reasonable. Remember, though, if you wanted to play any edition of D&D using miniatures, there is no reason why you couldn't use your Battletech figures.

Megamek is a free PC game written in java. Figures? :p

Archetype

12-31-2009, 12:20 PM

[*twitch*]
muh...muh...muh....
[*shudder*]
must.......must....not....
[*groan*]
......REPLY!......

:rolleyes:puh-leeze:rolleyes:

This cheese-beyond-cheese race was one of the deathknells for the new, kiddie-friendly paper D$D game, and why our gaming group refers to it as the "H.R. Pufnstuf" Edition of the Dungeons & Dragons game.

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb17/Drewseye/SARCASM/2926-More-Pufnstuf.jpg
:p4th Edition D&D Adventuring party: Dragonborn Paladin, human Warlock, halfling Rogue. :p

Over all my capped characters dead and non-resurectable bodies! :D

/facepalm

......you made me GO THERE.....[*sigh*]...again...

WHY?

:p

Dawn_Falcon

01-05-2010, 11:08 PM

Depending on what low magic means it either means magic is rarer (ergo, any mages that do exist are even more dominant, because there are fewer other mages to counter them) or magic is less prevalent (which just means nothing can save the aforementioned non casters).

Nope. Those are just sparse magic.

Low magic? Take a look at the Newhon setting. A minimum of 1 round/spell level casting times.

SquelchHU

01-06-2010, 08:06 AM

Nope. Those are just sparse magic.

Low magic? Take a look at the Newhon setting. A minimum of 1 round/spell level casting times.

Ok, so 'nothing can save the non casters'. Gotcha.

Dawn_Falcon

01-06-2010, 06:25 PM

Ok, so 'nothing can save the non casters'. Gotcha.

If you can't think of ways to break a caster's concentration when he's doing multi-round casts? You're incompetent.

But we already knew that.

rezo

01-06-2010, 06:41 PM

3.5rd + 4th = DDO, lol.

It true, just look at the way the game is going. It's a nice hybrid between the two.

Mysterium

01-06-2010, 07:21 PM

One: DDO is not pen and paper Dungeons and Dragons. DDO is an MMORPG that licensed the Dungeons and Dragons intellectual property for the purposes of marketing and design expedience. Mechanically, there is really very little in common between DDO and any pen and paper edition of Dungeons and Dragons. In fact, I would go so far as to say that original Everquest and the DIKU MUDs it was based on resembled pen and paper Dungeons and Dragons much more closely.

Two: Fourth Edition Dungeons and Dragons is not Third Edition Dungeons and Dragons. Furthermore, Third Edition Dungeons and Dragons is not Second Edition Dungeons and Dragons. In fact, these are completely separate games that merely share intellectual property for the purposes of marketing and design expedience.

To clarify the above points - Dungeons and Dragons is a brand. DDO, DnD, DnD 2, DnD 3 and DnD 4 are all separate games that share this brand for the purposes of... *drumroll* marketing and design expedience.

timberhick

01-07-2010, 12:59 PM

Dawn_Falcon

01-07-2010, 05:35 PM

I would go so far as to say that original Everquest and the DIKU MUDs it was based on resembled pen and paper Dungeons and Dragons much more closely.

Okay, put the crack pipe down.

DikuMUD's ancestry can be traced via AberMUD to MUD1, which was inspired by Zork and from there back to ADVENT. It's rules are, essentially, from interactive fiction and the rulesets which sprung up surrounding that.

DDO is a direct adaptation of the D&D 3.x rules to a computer game.

SquelchHU

01-08-2010, 07:44 AM

If you can't think of ways to break a caster's concentration when he's doing multi-round casts? You're incompetent.

But we already knew that.

You fail at reading comprehension forever. Incompetent, indeed.

Dawn_Falcon

01-08-2010, 11:19 AM

You fail at reading comprehension forever. Incompetent, indeed.

Oh a masterful comeback. So, remind me again how you can't disrupt multi-round cast times?

timberhick

01-08-2010, 03:49 PM

Oh a masterful comeback. So, remind me again how you can't disrupt multi-round cast times?

I think his answer would be.

"only incompetents would ever cast a spell that is longer than a standard action"

SquelchHU

01-08-2010, 07:13 PM

Oh a masterful comeback. So, remind me again how you can't disrupt multi-round cast times?

Irrelevant. Though you could do that with caster quality defenses easily, that is just a straw man.

Non casters lose at life because the enemy annihilates them. As your casters cannot 1 round the opposition first, they cannot save the non casters and thus nothing can. QED.

Aspenor

01-08-2010, 07:40 PM

I think i just suffered intelligence damage from reading the previous post.

timberhick

01-10-2010, 05:51 PM

Funny perspective about this whole 4e sucks, is just a money grab concepts.
Here is a link about a 2e players hate for the upcoming 3e
http://www.gamegrene.com/node/20.
Some choice bits
"Don't write a rant about a game before it has even come out! This is one of the silliest articles I have ever seen. First of all, you mention that you haven't even read the game, and then you pick apart a couple of rumors about changes in a mechanic. Get the facts before you rant.

2nd Edition AD&D is by far the worst RPG ever made. It was a money-making piece of ****, and those of you who defend it have supported its ****. Now it is time for something that is truly playable and fun to take its place -- I hope that is D&D 3E. I am waiting for my PH to come in the mail, but from what reviews I have seen, it is a very promising time for D&D.

Give up 2nd Edition AD&D and move to 3rd. Its time to change."

"Rabbitman, you are right on! WOTC has degraded one of the boundary breaking FRPG's into nothing more than a kiddie game and math class! WOTC is the Disney of RPG companies with its retooling of the world to make it acceptable and politically correct for everyone! Everyone can be a Paladin now. Everyone can be a 99999999999999999th level elf now. Noone need hear the word 'thief' in D&D discussion. Don't worry fighters, you'll advance just as fast as wizards and rogues now. What? Game balance has been destroyed? D&D 3e is nothing more than an RPG video game played on paper? Other than the absence of ability pre-requisites and fun, our game mechanic resembles Palladium's FRPG almost exactly? Our core base of fans that have been with us for twenty years+ feel alienated?

Thanks Rabbitman for not being afraid of the Wizards of the Coast who are devouring what is left of the gaming world.

Just nice to see that nothing has actually changed.

You should check out the reviews from amazon about 3e.

Yes I got this from WotC's forums. Just thought it would be nice to show over here.

Dawn_Falcon

01-11-2010, 04:39 AM

Yes I got this from WotC's forums. Just thought it would be nice to show over here.

It's not really relevant. There a few people who'll hate any change. But 2nd->3rd still gives you what is very recognisably the same game. 3rd->4th...dosn't.

timberhick

01-11-2010, 08:49 AM

It's not really relevant. There a few people who'll hate any change. But 2nd->3rd still gives you what is very recognizably the same game. 3rd->4th...doesn't.

Yes, there a few people who'll hate any change....

I do find it interesting that the changes made between 2->3 was far more extensive than 3->4, but so many here feel the changes made from 3->4 was so drastic it has completely destroyed the game and yadda yadda.

The link shows where all so many who were in love with 2e thought 3e was nothing but a video game...much like most here who love 3e and their thoughts towards 4e.

KKDragonLord

01-11-2010, 09:01 AM

Dude if 3.5 is the abomination edition, what is 4.0?

The ultimate BS edition? Dnd for 6 year olds?

Give me a break.

Pretty much yeah.

4e is just a simplified version of 3.0 with MMO style class powers and monsters included.

3e is where D&D stopped being about roleplaying and turned into a wargame, though to its credit it still tried to include some RP rules (i.e. rules about "making sense") from previous editions so it could still pass for an RPG.

I still play all of those editions, i just see them for what they are, when i want roleplay i go with 2e, when i want a wargame i do 4e.

Simplest way to compare those editions is seeing in which one combat goes faster, in 2e combat is 10% of a session(depending on the setting), in 4e it can go up to be as much as 90%, and that means its much slower, not that it happens more often.

timberhick

01-11-2010, 09:19 AM

Pretty much yeah.

4e is just a simplified version of 3.0 with MMO style class powers and monsters included.

3e is where D&D stopped being about roleplaying and turned into a wargame, though to its credit it still tried to include some RP rules (i.e. rules about "making sense") from previous editions so it could still pass for an RPG.

I still play all of those editions, i just see them for what they are, when i want roleplay i go with 2e, when i want a wargame i do 4e.

Simplest way to compare those editions is seeing in which one combat goes faster, in 2e combat is 10% of a session(depending on the setting), in 4e it can go up to be as much as 90%, and that means its much slower, not that it happens more often.
Rules about 'making sense"?
Wha?
Strange that 4e has more space given to roleplaying in the book than either 2e or 3e, yet it is the one that doesn't roleplay.
Odd dontcha think?
2e combat was 10% of the session? No hyperbole there at all.

KKDragonLord

01-11-2010, 09:29 AM

Rules about 'making sense"?
Wha?
Strange that 4e has more space given to roleplaying in the book than either 2e or 3e, yet it is the one that the that doesn't roleplay.
Odd dontcha think?
2e combat was 10% of the session? No hyperbole there at all.

Well you know... when lighting went beyond its range for low-light vision, or when diagonal movement was still 1-2-1, or when horses weren't as fat as hippos, or when resting didn't regenerate all the wounds a character had, or when you could try to trip an opponent no matter what class you were even if you didnt have a power for that, or when the concept of sneak attacking was easier to understand and didnt work on ghosts or skeletons, when kobold players werent genetically flawed to not have dark vision, and things like that...

"more space?" really? ever heard of 2e books that werent about feats or spells or classes or magic items, like elminsters ecologies? this isnt an argument that can be verified without some kind of statistic analysis so i wont go there. Whoever knows both editions, and isn't in denial or demagoguing, knows what im talking about

Granted that combat could take larger portions of a session in 2e, but that would mean more encounters in a session, certain campaign Settings usually encourage different encounter ratios, i gave that number from my recent experience with ravenloft while on dark-sun it certainly could go higher on an average basis. But on 4e 70-90% is usually the norm, and thats because it goes much slower.

timberhick

01-11-2010, 10:43 AM

Well you know... when lighting went beyond its range for low-light vision, or when diagonal movement was still 1-2-1, or when horses weren't as fat as hippos, or when resting didn't regenerate all the wounds a character had, or when you could try to trip an opponent no matter what class you were even if you didnt have a power for that, or when the concept of sneak attacking was easier to understand and didnt work on ghosts or skeletons, when kobold players werent genetically flawed to not have dark vision, and things like that...
Dim Light: This category includes the light provided by a candle or another dim light source, moonlight, indirect illumination (such as in a cave interior whose entrance is nearby or in a subterranean passageway that has narrow shafts extending to the surface), and the light cast by things such as phosphorescent fungi. Characters who have normal vision can’t see well in dim light: Creatures in the area have concealment (page 281). Characters who have low-light vision or darkvision see normally in dim light.
Makes sense.
Diagonal movement? Really? And who was most effected by this? Oh yeah the players....
3e allowed you to sneak attack undead...
kobolds and dark vision is personal preference, but your not upset that kobolds went from furry rats guys to dragon worshipping lizards?

"more space?" really? ever heard of 2e books that werent about feats or spells or classes or magic items, like elminsters ecologies? this isnt an argument that can be verified without some kind of statistic analysis so i wont go there. Whoever knows both editions, and isn't in denial or demagoguing, knows what im talking about
Open Grave, Plane Below, etc all describe how you can enhance your game.

Granted that combat could take larger portions of a session in 2e, but that would mean more encounters in a session, certain campaign Settings usually encourage different encounter ratios, i gave that number from my recent experience with ravenloft while on dark-sun it certainly could go higher on an average basis. But on 4e 70-90% is usually the norm, and thats because it goes much slower.
Personal experiences have no real bearing, it is only opinion.

KKDragonLord

01-11-2010, 11:32 AM

Dim Light: This category includes the light provided by a candle or another dim light source, moonlight, indirect illumination (such as in a cave interior whose entrance is nearby or in a subterranean passageway that has narrow shafts extending to the surface), and the light cast by things such as phosphorescent fungi. Characters who have normal vision can’t see well in dim light: Creatures in the area have concealment (page 281). Characters who have low-light vision or darkvision see normally in dim light.
Makes sense.

Nice try, there is only Dim Light in circumstances where the light source itself projects it, which is not the case of the Bright Light generated by torches or lamps. Not that it matters anyway, 4e makes this moot most of the time with the absurd 100 feet illumination in all directions cast by Sunrods. Suddenly using shadows to hide perils became much harder than before.

Diagonal movement? Really? And who was most effected by this? Oh yeah the players....

Not to mention Logic and Physics

3e allowed you to sneak attack undead...
Yeah, as long as you had the appropriate feats or prestige classes that came out in the upteenth class based source books.

kobolds and dark vision is personal preference, but your not upset that kobolds went from furry rats guys to dragon worshipping lizards?
If by personal preference you mean "specifically stated in the racial template rules for players", then yeah. Kobold players are all genetically flawed individuals thrown out of their underground communities for not being able to see in their native environment. Conveniently enough they all share much greater destinies than their monstrous peers. I dont care much about the whole dragonblood thing, its quite ironic and gives a certain charm to the race.

Open Grave, Plane Below, etc all describe how you can enhance your game.

"Describing how to enhance the game" is a lot different than making books specifically for the further development of a campaign setting. 4e has been better than 3e because it isnt trying to pass rule books as Setting books while having 30 pages for "Game enhancing tips" and 120 for Feats and magic items and monster templates and classes and spells, etc... But the truth is that 4e is much more about spewing out Player Handbook 1 2 3+ and its inevitable class source books, than anything else. (not to mention the monthly online "updates" that make books "downgraded" versions of the ruleset)

Personal experiences have no real bearing, it is only opinion.

An opinion very likely shared by people who have their own personal experiences. Not having any personal experience wouldn't be very fair now would it? How about playing a 2e module and getting some hard numbers instead of estimates then? Im sure you'll reach very similar conclusions.

timberhick

01-11-2010, 12:37 PM

Nice try, there is only Dim Light in circumstances where the light source itself projects it, which is not the case of the Bright Light generated by torches or lamps. Not that it matters anyway, 4e makes this moot most of the time with the absurd 100 feet illumination in all directions cast by Sunrods. Suddenly using shadows to hide perils became much harder than before.
Uhm..That was a direct quote from the phb, pg 262

Not to mention Logic and Physics
Logic and Physics in a game with walking corpses and flying, flame breathing lizards? No mention on why most corridors were exactly 5 or 10 feet wide? No mention on why someone was able to swing their polearms with impunity, never once hitting their own party mates, or that you could walk through your own mates in combat, or that a spellcaster never had to worry about misjudging distance?
You would rather take exception to the 1-1-1 movement compared to the 1-2-1 movement.

Yeah, as long as you had the appropriate feats or prestige classes that came out in the upteenth class based source books.
And that was different, how, from having the proper spell memorized at the proper time?
I realize that there are some out there who think a melee type should only stand around and perhaps swing his sword every so often, but really is it that hard to allow players to make their characters a little more unique?

If by personal preference you mean "especially defined by the racial template rules for players", then yeah. I dont care much about the whole dragonblood thing, its quite ironic and gives a certain charm to the race.
And? The racial monster write-ups are quick add hoks for the people who just gotta play something different.

"Describing how to enhance the game" is a lot different than making books specifically for the further development of a campaign setting. 4e has been better than 3e because it isnt trying to pass rule books as Setting books while having 30 pages for "Game enhancing tips" and 120 for Feats and magic items and monster templates and classes and spells, etc... But the truth is that 4e is much more about spewing out Player Handbook 1 2 3+ and its inevitable class source books, than anything else. (not to mention the monthly online "updates" that make books "downgraded" versions of the ruleset)
Dontcha already have the 2e books on FR? Prolly even have a chunk of the 3e stuff? Yet you want more? WotC through their surveys found less than a 1/3 of the people actually play in published settings. Would you go through all the trouble to keep producing stuff for numerous settings that only a third or so would actually buy?
Personally I like that WotC is finally getting away from the concept of telling everyone that "here at X there is yadda yadda yadda, and over here yadda yadda yadda"

An opinion very likely shared by people who have their own personal experiences. Not having any personal experience wouldn't be very fair now would it? How about playing a 2e module and getting some hard numbers instead of estimates then? Im sure you'll reach very similar conclusions.
I started playing D&D with 1e, spent the whole entirety of 2e playing. Been there done that, Can't believe we actually played that way. Oh so boring, but I learned that way before 3e came along, I started branching out into other RPGs soon after 2e hit(Ars Magica and Shadowrun, then branched in Amber and Palladium) I really didn't play that much 2e until my military days.
I picked up Keep on the Shadowfell, when 4e came out, that was the first time I ran a module since Night Below. I'm not a fan of modules, I have found the DMs who use them to be, not as engaging as DMs who make their own. ymmv

KKDragonLord

01-11-2010, 01:06 PM

Deflection... Snip

I can see you don't care to read what i am really saying instead of what you think i am saying. I never said there wasn't rules for Dim Light in 4e, just that by the rules, light sources that cast bright light, don't cast dim light, their outer boundaries are complete darkness instead. I hoped i had been clear enough on this simple example by now, i didn't expect it to create such a fierce debate.

After all, its nothing a simple house-rule wouldnt't fix, as it is with all the "simplifications" 4e made to facilitate certain aspects of gameplay. The side-effect of these things is creating situations that are hard to imagine. There certainly are supernatural forces in the world, but basic principles of physics should still apply, if only to not rupture the principle of verisimilitude and prevent enticing meta-game thinking.

I didn't mention all such occasions because i assumed the point i was making wouldn't require a rant that could span more pages than the thread has at the moment. I understand that in 4e verisimilitude is of a lesser importance than the rules, that is precisely the point i am making, i am glad we agree.

Saying that 3e had sneak attacks on undead with the appropriate feats is unreasonable, even those feats had an explanation on how or why it worked, by channeling positive energy to make a Sneak Attack-like effect. This argument doesnt explain about sneak attacking Constructs or Plants or Oozes. You could have easily argued the point that most 4e staunchest defenders make by saying that there's nothing wrong with "attacking weakpoints" on any foe, (even ghosts).

Nevertheless, none of that change some much more ludicrous situations where arrows and daggers are as effective at killing skeletons as clubs or maces.

I do have quite a bit of setting books from all editions indeed. Now you are saying that 3e and 4e campaign settings don't need to be so thought out and developed because people wouldn't buy them. The reasons for that would be that consumers already have the 2e material and their surveys "found out" that most people don't play on published settings.

Well, it doesn't take a genius to relate how people stopped playing in campaign settings after they started chugging out poorer developed versions of those settings. Another interestingly related statement was when they claimed that 2e's failure was precisely the success of its well developed myriad of Settings, which resulted in "cult followings" dividing the pool of consumers and generating diminished returns. Another interesing fact is that the main writer that "adapted" FR to 4e was one of the big names they sacked a few months ago, probably for their less than favorable results. (And quite possibly, the outcome of travesties committed to introduce all 4e changes to the setting).

Seeing as how you have evaded all i was originally saying. It is clear that your only interest is making excuses to defend the game you are currently playing. I'd just like to point out that (in response to your very reasonable sig) such defense is unnecessary as i am not a 4e hater, nor was i ranting. I was simply categorizing the appropriate genres of the different versions of DnD based on the focus of their rules, while openly admitting to be a regular player of both editions.

My analysis is not centered in extremes, merely on experience, a very uncommon and unexpected manner of speech on internet forums, i am quite aware.
I hope, eventually, you'll understand.

timberhick

01-11-2010, 04:43 PM

Rant...snip

At what point does light turn into dim light turn into darkness?

How does that impede upon the old rules..er verisimilitude?

4e allows you, even encourages you to take the game and make it your own.

Sorry, but you are ranting.

But for completeness sake lets double check what you were saying

Dude if 3.5 is the abomination edition, what is 4.0?

The ultimate BS edition? Dnd for 6 year olds?

Give me a break.
Pretty much yeah.

4e is just a simplified version of 3.0 with MMO style class powers and monsters included.

3e is where D&D stopped being about roleplaying and turned into a wargame, though to its credit it still tried to include some RP rules (i.e. rules about "making sense") from previous editions so it could still pass for an RPG.

I still play all of those editions, i just see them for what they are, when i want roleplay i go with 2e, when i want a wargame i do 4e.

Simplest way to compare those editions is seeing in which one combat goes faster, in 2e combat is 10% of a session(depending on the setting), in 4e it can go up to be as much as 90%, and that means its much slower, not that it happens more often.
Lets see
4e is a video game: check: cuz we all know if it ain't a spell it's a video game or superpower
4e is a miniature game: check: cuz no miniatures were ever made prior to 3e
4e has no roleplaying: check: cuz you can only play how the designers of the books say you can..
4e combat is slow: check: cuz somehow "I target as many as possible with fireball" makes combat go faster...

Nope no ranting there at all

KKDragonLord

01-11-2010, 05:02 PM

Right... that's exactly all i said :rolleyes:

timberhick

01-11-2010, 05:32 PM

What did I get wrong?

SquelchHU

01-11-2010, 06:37 PM

Only affects 2d4 HD. Some are going to make their save.

You're level 1. 2d4 HD is the entire encounter.

Only affects 1d6 creatures. Any creatures that have 3 or more HD are going to be hindered, but not defeated. Some are going to make their save.

Again, the entire encounter.

Only affects creatures in a 40 foot radius, if there are plants in the area. Doesn't defeat enemies, only hinders them. Some are going to make their save.

And yet again. Also, all of these will have a 75% success rate or more, which is actually still a better save or die than 'Fighter with two handed weapon' which will also kill if it hits, but is likely to miss more than a quarter of the time.

I'm not fond of 3.5, but calling it the abomination edition isn't fair, in my opinion. :P

Nice try.

Dawn_Falcon

01-12-2010, 06:22 PM

Yes, there a few people who'll hate any change....

I do find it interesting that the changes made between 2->3 was far more extensive than 3->4, but so many here feel the changes made from 3->4 was so drastic it has completely destroyed the game and yadda yadda.

Uh? The changes between 3->4 are easily an order of magnitude more drastic than the 2->3 changes!
A bunch of the changes such as the inversion of Thaco and AC into BAB and armour and alternate ways of handling strength bonuses were already VERY common house rules...

KKDragonLord

01-12-2010, 07:40 PM

timberhick

01-12-2010, 08:55 PM

Uh? The changes between 3->4 are easily an order of magnitude more drastic than the 2->3 changes!
A bunch of the changes such as the inversion of Thaco and AC into BAB and armour and alternate ways of handling strength bonuses were already VERY common house rules...

VERY common house rules? Really? And you know this from?

I played 2e in 5 different states and 3 different countries in the 90s, never once came across a group or person that ever messed with thac0 or AC. Perhaps I was playing with the wrong groups?

I did play in a group that used a version of healing surges and another group that used both the house ruled healing surge(I brought that in) and 'powers' for non spellcasters.

Funny thing about that new changes to 4e, they have been in other RPGs for over a decade, they are in no way 'new' just new to D&D.

Dawn_Falcon

01-13-2010, 09:50 AM

epochofcrepuscule

01-13-2010, 10:24 AM

Name one good thing from pnp that you think I will like from 4E remembering

1 I hate what they did to casters

2. I hate heal surges

3. I hate the clickie feel of class powers the whole daily/encounter/at will thing

4. I really hate what they did to clerics.

I doubt you will find one thing I will like or that many other old schoolers will like heck I dont even like 3.x that much. but at least it looks something like ad&d which 4E doesnt.

2.0, thats where its at.

Riorik

01-13-2010, 10:53 AM

Sorry, but you are ranting.

Pot calling the kettle black?

I'm confused why I'm not apathetic enough about this entire conversation to simply ignore it as irrelevant drivel. Best I can tell, you (and a few others) just seem to be trying to get the "last word" in...aka, last post.

You'd think it was 2012 :D or something and the end is nigh.

timberhick

01-13-2010, 11:58 AM

From? Ah, you might want to try reading the old Dragon magazines.
Inverting AC/Thaco was even done by TSR in their Gamma World RPG, I'd note.

And which RPG's would you be refering to?

KKDragonLord - Right. Same as elements of 4e were introduced in some 3e books. It's...not been that much of a shock if you've followed published products. (And 4e wasn't a shock to me at all, I was expecting to dislike it intensely...)

I was never one for the magazines, nor were most of the people I knew.

Which RPGs?
Well, wow, a whole slew of them.
Earthdawn is near the top of the list, they have a healing surge mechanic and have 'powers'(called talents in ED), that game came out around '94.
WoD has 'powers'
Most skill based RPGs have powers or stunts or any other name they may put into place.
A number of Super Hero RPGs, have healing surge type mechanics and powers. Marvel, old DC, new DC, Palladium's Heroes Unlimited, Hero System
Gurps has mechanics in place that aid in either healing or 'powers', BESM does as well.

The list goes on and on.

A number of the newerish games have expounded upon what came before and added in new mechanics.

It is why I giggle a bit when I here "It's just a video game" rants.
This style of gaming has been around for 2 decades and longer, it's only the people who haven't gone outside of TSR products(or very little) that make these types of comments.

I'm not even saying it's bad that they don't, they like what they like, nothing wrong with that. I just do not see the point on peeing on what someone else likes, just to pee on it.

Dawn_Falcon

01-13-2010, 10:44 PM

I was never one for the magazines, nor were most of the people I knew.

Which RPGs?
Well, wow, a whole slew of them.

With free use and per-encounter powers, and the basic necessity of using a board if you're going to run combat?

Sorry, don't buy it - I've played some of those, and it's just not true for them.

And 4e isn't a "video game". Indeed, it's going to have issues working in a video game (but don't hold your breath for one) because of the way it's structured.

timberhick

01-14-2010, 09:18 AM

With free use and per-encounter powers, and the basic necessity of using a board if you're going to run combat?

Sorry, don't buy it - I've played some of those, and it's just not true for them.

And 4e isn't a "video game". Indeed, it's going to have issues working in a video game (but don't hold your breath for one) because of the way it's structured.

Strange thing about using a board for combat, first time I ever played D&D(86?) they were using miniatures and game board to play on. I didn't know any better, so assumed that was the way it was played. When I played Ars Magica and Shadowrun with another group they didn't use miniature or gameboard. I didn't realize the one true way players never use miniatures. I thought D&D did. But when my older brother and I went to visit and old friend(we had moved in 81)(visited him in 90, just before I shipped out), he had miniatures that he was using for a shadowrun game(rogue trader figs if I would hazard a guess) So in the year or so Shadowrun had been in release I had played 2 different games one with and one without miniatures. It wasn't until my first duty station that I played D&D without miniatures, some 5 years after I started playing.

Yes some of those games do not have 'encounter powers' they, however, have 'powers' that equate to encounter powers, either by taking more than one round to use, or are situational enough to warrant limited use. Nor did I say it was going to be a direct translation. The concepts are there in the systems