DDO And PnP 4th Edition

[ddobard1]

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.

[Aspenor]

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.

[Big-Dex]

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.

Oh boy. :eek: You have opened a real can of worms here. You might wish you had been more careful. :D;):p

Seriously, the DEVS have spoken on this and the players have too, but I am sure the discussion will resume. A quick search will reveal a ton of posts on it.

Happy hunting!

Dex was here. :cool:

[Demoyn]

This is, of course, only my opinion.

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.

[Big-Dex]

And so it begins... ROFL. :D

Dex was here. :cool:

[Aspenor]

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

Well, at least the money grab comment was fact. How else can you explain that WotC has published MULTIPLE player's handbooks? They didn't even offer the entire game in one book, they have intentionally forced players to buy multiple books to put themselves on an even footing with what is contained in only ONE book of 3.5.

Not to mention, they have been pulling 3.5 books off the shelves, and have effectively eliminated their support for the 3.5 system. It's their way of saying: buy our books, spend more money.

[Demoyn]

It's their way of saying: buy our books, spend more money.

Funny, I thought it was their way of saying, "Paizo deserves money more than us, so we're taking away any reason to support us."

[Baahb3]

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.

I am said fat man and can attest...that would be pretty quick :D

[Aerendil]

I want to be a striker!


/vomit.

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.

DDO went live back when 3.0/3.5 was being used, which is the key point here, so that was (and should continue to be IMO) the model for future expansions.
Changing the entire thing to 4.0 should wait for DDO2 :p

[ddobard1]

Even if you have a negative opinion about PnP 4th edition, some new features in 4th edition look atractive to you. May be DDO should announce that it will implement good stuff beyond the 3.5 edition at the pace they coul afford.
Just an opinion, but i think DDO should release the anchor to the 3.5 edition!

[cdbd3rd]

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.

Prolly so.
At the very least, I know 2 accounts that would decend rapidly to F2P accounts. ;)

[Aspenor]

Funny, I thought it was their way of saying, "Paizo deserves money more than us, so we're taking away any reason to support us."

zing

[Uska]

UMMM NO 4E is the worst excuse for dnd bar none there ever was. In order to make it like 4E they would have to shut it down and start over basicly this is 3.5 dnd sort of and you cant really add much from 4E without totaly changing what ddo is.

[Uska]

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.

people hell the equipment will likely selfdestruct in disgust at 4E

[Uska]

Funny, I thought it was their way of saying, "Paizo deserves money more than us, so we're taking away any reason to support us."

I thought was hackmaster is a better game and we had just better implode.

[Uska]

Even if you have a negative opinion about PnP 4th edition, some new features in 4th edition look atractive to you. May be DDO should announce that it will implement good stuff beyond the 3.5 edition at the pace they coul afford.
Just an opinion, but i think DDO should release the anchor to the 3.5 edition!

There is not one thing I find attractive in 4E and I tried to run it for a year and even set up and ran two world wide game days, DDO cant implement the good stuff from 4E that over balanced money grab that it is.

[ddobard1]

I dont talk about updating, but from now on, it is necessary to read carefully the 4th edition books and follow the good material coming from PnP in the future.

[Korvek]

Well, at least the money grab comment was fact. How else can you explain that WotC has published MULTIPLE player's handbooks? They didn't even offer the entire game in one book, they have intentionally forced players to buy multiple books to put themselves on an even footing with what is contained in only ONE book of 3.5.

Perhaps I've misinterpreted this, but there's definitely a PHB II for 3.5e, though admittedly the PHB II for 3.5 doesn't seem to include any new races.

[Uska]

I dont talk about updating, but from now on, it is necessary to read carefully the 4th edition books and follow the good material coming from PnP in the future.

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.

[Aspenor]

Perhaps I've misinterpreted this, but there's definitely a PHB II for 3.5e, though admittedly the PHB II for 3.5 doesn't seem to include any new races.

PHB 2 in 3.5 is a splat book.

PHB 2+ in 4.0 are absolutely required to have core classes like barbarians, druids, and bards.

[ddobard1]

For instance, what about people think how it would work the divinitys in DDO? I think it was an idea that brings some new excitement to the game. New variables, more diversity between our characters and 'life' routes. just a thought.

[Uska]

PHB 2 in 3.5 is a splat book.

PHB 2+ in 4.0 are absolutely required to have core classes like barbarians, druids, and bards.

yup and they are going to pretty much make as many books like that they can classic money grab tactic.

[Uska]

For instance, what about people think how it would work the divinitys in DDO? I think it was an idea that brings some new excitement to the game. New variables, more diversity between our characters and 'life' routes. just a thought.

I dont see any use it that. seems more of a pnp thing.

[ddobard1]

I dont understand why they didnt put the core classes of PHB2 in PHB1?! When i started PHB2 imediately noticed something was missing! Please this in ancient times and barbaric ones!

[EKKM]

PHB 2 in 3.5 is a splat book.

PHB 2+ in 4.0 are absolutely required to have core classes like barbarians, druids, and bards.

Bah, anything other than Fighting man, Cleric and Magic-User are splatbook classes. I sometimes allow my players to use the thief from that overpowered Greyhawk expansion. ;)

Edit: say no to 4.0 - it's for pinko - commies

[sephiroth1084]

While I agree that, as a whole, 4E is a huge step down from 3.x, I do feel that there are some positive things that 4E has introduced that may translate well to DDO.

Translating DDO over to 4E entirely, though, would be equivalent to Turbine setting fire to their own offices.

[Hellllboy]

There is a game that already uses 4.0 rules...its called WoW! (jk)

[transtemporal]

I'm ashamed to say it, but I might be slightly warming to it. Its far easier to run than 3.5 was as a DM. :o

I do agree on the PHB2 though. "We'll put all the crappy classes in the first book, then put all the good classes like bbn, sorc in the second one".

[ddobard1]

The question is should DDO watch the way PnP is going or stay anchored to 3.5 Edition? My feeling is that DDO should follow PnP route carefully and without rush. All the changes implemented being result of echos from PnP. Of course alll the quests, races, classes,equipment available are valid, so you arent starting no fire at all.

[Shaamis]

UMMM NO 4E is the worst excuse for dnd bar none there ever was. In order to make it like 4E they would have to shut it down and start over basicly this is 3.5 dnd sort of and you cant really add much from 4E without totaly changing what ddo is.

QFT, DDO cannot be converted to 4.0 withough turning it inside out:

convert all classes, full respec for everyone, all of the equipment would have to change, all of the powers would have to change, and ddo would become a click/wait system like other WoW-clones.

I play 4th ed. and 3.5 currently, and while they can't be compared to each other accurately, they both do have charms that make them great.

4th ed. is VERY simplistic, and since the primary PnP playerbase loves teh intricacy that 3.5 offered, to revert to such a simplistic form almost feels like base treachery on the part of WotC.

To a point I agree, but I also understand from a business standpoint why it was made.

Besides, Basic D&D and Advanced D&D division has been dead for years, why not re-invent it in the form of 4th ed. and Paizo's 3.75 ?*

[Gratch]

There was a newsfeed rumor (http://weblogs.variety.com/the_cut_scene/2009/06/ataris-secret-weapon-neverwinter-nights.html) somewhere that Atari (holder of the D&D license) may have their MMO-barfing Cryptic produce a D&D MMO. I'm sure if they did it would be a 4th edition based MMO.

Wonder what they'd call it to differentiate from Turbine's D&D Online:
City of Dragons? Dungeons of Heroes? Champions of the Dungeons? DragonTrek:Online?

I kind of like the last one.... piloting your dragon all over for hours and hours looking for other dragons to fight.

As to 4th edition PnP... someone got expensive books all over the cancelled D&D 3.5ed minis game.

[SpanishBlueEyes]

Ok i am going to say this and i will not try to **** off too many 4.0 lovers but i am about to play 4.0 just so that i can comfirm how much i don't like it. but i would leave DDO if they change thw WHOLE rule set for 4.0. to me it is like taking the great things of DnD and getting rid of them.

[Damionic]

Im probberly going to get a fonging like ive never been fonged before.......yet

I quite like D&D 4.0....but this is not the question of who likes...and who prefers ready salted to dry roasted.....It dosent really matter.

Only a question I throw to you...

If not for D&D 4.0.....what else is there?

[Riorik]

An abomination. 4th is DnD in name only.

[Uska]

The question is should DDO watch the way PnP is going or stay anchored to 3.5 Edition? My feeling is that DDO should follow PnP route carefully and without rush. All the changes implemented being result of echos from PnP. Of course alll the quests, races, classes,equipment available are valid, so you arent starting no fire at all.

Well thats the best way to lose me and some others is to follow wotc down the loo and even with the changes we look nothing like 4E

[Uska]

QFT, DDO cannot be converted to 4.0 withough turning it inside out:

convert all classes, full respec for everyone, all of the equipment would have to change, all of the powers would have to change, and ddo would become a click/wait system like other WoW-clones.

I play 4th ed. and 3.5 currently, and while they can't be compared to each other accurately, they both do have charms that make them great.

4th ed. is VERY simplistic, and since the primary PnP playerbase loves teh intricacy that 3.5 offered, to revert to such a simplistic form almost feels like base treachery on the part of WotC.

To a point I agree, but I also understand from a business standpoint why it was made.

Besides, Basic D&D and Advanced D&D division has been dead for years, why not re-invent it in the form of 4th ed. and Paizo's 3.75 ?*



Glad you like 4E me cant stand it way to bland for me, but it finaly gave me the courage to dump wotc and go with hackmaster 5th ed. you should check it out has a very old school and hackmaster is no longer the well sellilng joke that 4th editon was(if you know anything about that that is)

[Uska]

There was a newsfeed rumor (http://weblogs.variety.com/the_cut_scene/2009/06/ataris-secret-weapon-neverwinter-nights.html) somewhere that Atari (holder of the D&D license) may have their MMO-barfing Cryptic produce a D&D MMO. I'm sure if they did it would be a 4th edition based MMO.

Wonder what they'd call it to differentiate from Turbine's D&D Online:
City of Dragons? Dungeons of Heroes? Champions of the Dungeons? DragonTrek:Online?

I kind of like the last one.... piloting your dragon all over for hours and hours looking for other dragons to fight.

As to 4th edition PnP... someone got expensive books all over the cancelled D&D 3.5ed minis game.



The Moonshae Isles

[Uska]

Im probberly going to get a fonging like ive never been fonged before.......yet

I quite like D&D 4.0....but this is not the question of who likes...and who prefers ready salted to dry roasted.....It dosent really matter.

Only a question I throw to you...

If not for D&D 4.0.....what else is there?

Hackmaster 5th editon its a billion times the game 4E is.:D I like it better then 3.5 myself but then my fave dnd is 1st ed ad&d

[ddobard1]

Instances of interesting stuff available in PnP 4th Edition:
- PHB1 suggestion for entering initial ability scores (cuts abilities inflation);
- PHB1 suggestion for ability scores bonus from races (dont get negative numbers);
- An improvement to levels (30);
- Deities;
- Number of feats available for each character(more options);
- Attacks rolls, damage, saves new formulas;
- Choose from 2 abilities the core ability to defenses(AC, Saves);

The point is this: this game's name is DnD(O) and there is D&D PnP as a theoric reference to players(players like to be playing the newest release). May be DDO should ask from times to times PnP to know the future paths of PnP. DDO should take PnP 4th edition with ease, PnP says this is D&D for a decade!
But PnP never will be DDO and DDO never will be PnP!

[joker965]

I play PnP AD&D about 4 times a month. We play a very house modified 2nd edition AD&D game. We already came up with much of the 3rd edition stuff as house rules before it came out. We did not however change the entire game/combat mechanic. In our opinion D&D jumped the shark as a PnP game when 3.0 came out. That was us telling everyone that 3.0 was just a money grab back then. 4.0 is a funny joke. It is D&D in name only because WOTC owns the rights.

It would be like if George Lucas makes another Star Wars except now all of the Jedi wear pink tutus and their force is powered by big macs. It is still Star Wars because George owns it.

[ddobard1]

D&D characters get less hp and all can heal himself in 4th edition. The squishes ones get about 200 hp and toughness ones get 300 hp and Ultra bosses about 1500 hp for capped players. Ability Constitution not so important for hp in DnD. Well all this stuff is improving!?

[Uska]

D&D characters get less hp and all can heal himself in 4th edition. The squishes ones get about 200 hp and toughness ones get 300 hp and Ultra bosses about 1500 hp for capped players. Ability Constitution not so important for hp in DnD. Well all this stuff is improving!?

Umm they have more hp then my groups characters ever did and so do mobs its like a video game and I HATE HEALING SURGES those feel even more like a video game and add to the over balancing and they are to easy to reset, I like how we play and we dont get to craft much in the way of healing items so our healing is mainly the paladins lay hands and the clerics spells sometimes we arent sure we are going to make somewhere safe and sometimes we dont make it. There is no rest 5 min and get all your power back nonsense. I can never be conviced that 4E isn anything but a halfway decent combat sym

[Uska]

Instances of interesting stuff available in PnP 4th Edition:
- PHB1 suggestion for entering initial ability scores (cuts abilities inflation);
- PHB1 suggestion for ability scores bonus from races (dont get negative numbers);
- An improvement to levels (30);
- Deities;
- Number of feats available for each character(more options);
- Attacks rolls, damage, saves new formulas;
- Choose from 2 abilities the core ability to defenses(AC, Saves);

The point is this: this game's name is DnD(O) and there is D&D PnP as a theoric reference to players(players like to be playing the newest release). May be DDO should ask from times to times PnP to know the future paths of PnP. DDO should take PnP 4th edition with ease, PnP says this is D&D for a decade!
But PnP never will be DDO and DDO never will be PnP!




Umm ddo is more dnd and pnp then 4E ever will be no matter what hasbro says.

[Uska]

I play PnP AD&D about 4 times a month. We play a very house modified 2nd edition AD&D game. We already came up with much of the 3rd edition stuff as house rules before it came out. We did not however change the entire game/combat mechanic. In our opinion D&D jumped the shark as a PnP game when 3.0 came out. That was us telling everyone that 3.0 was just a money grab back then. 4.0 is a funny joke. It is D&D in name only because WOTC owns the rights.

It would be like if George Lucas makes another Star Wars except now all of the Jedi wear pink tutus and their force is powered by big macs. It is still Star Wars because George owns it.

Sounds like a fun game I never fully warmed to 3.x myself but I could still see dnd in it, thats why I am here I cant see dnd in 4E except for the name on the cover. I also used one of the 3.0 mechanics starting in the 80's the AC system a positive ac system made more sense to me..

Oh yeah +1 for ya

[Nyp]

PnP for 30+ years. Still play 2nd edition and have never seen any reason to change. PnP was never about the mechanics.

[buckland]

I am not new to D&D but I am new to DDO. I can say that a major factor in my initial rejection of DDO in 2006 was simply because I was too narrowminded to accept Eberron. I have recently read some of the Eberron material and I've now come to accept it, I was eager to try the DDO:EU beta and I liked it so much I subscribed.

Now because I was so narrowminded initially I have been trying not to be - I have missed D&D and so I have bought some of the 4E books. Like everything I think it's not completely black or white - it's not all bad. It is still however much of what you have said here - primarily a money grab. WotC seems to want me to buy a veritable slew of books just to replace my old 3e Player's Handbook, Monster Manual and DM Guide. I have bought some and I still can't figure out how to properly translate my multiclass characters to 4e. If anyone could help there I'd love to know.

And so for DDO, I'd have my reservations about it going 4e but to "evolve" it might have to since WotC still controls the license and they probably want a mutually beneficial relationship with Turbine. As I said I have been trying to be not so narrowminded as I was before. I am trying to find things in 4e to accept - not because I am pleased with the direction WotC is taking, but because I recognize that for them it is a business and they need to keep selling, much like DDO is adopting this new model to hopefully attract new revenue streams. Business and gaming don't seem to work well a lot of the time. Anyone ever wonder how much say Hasbro has over WotC? I think that's when things went downhill.

And lastly, I keep trying to accept because I practically grew up in the universe of D&D and I don't want to see it die. My two cents.

[Velexia]

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.

And that's pretty damned fast people!

4.0 is indeed an abomination. Thank you Hasbro, for turning WotC into the devil, and D&D into WoW.

[Velexia]

I dont talk about updating, but from now on, it is necessary to read carefully the 4th edition books and follow the good material coming from PnP in the future.

These two things are mutually exclusive.

I've sat down in the bookstore and read these books. It's all trash. But, believe you me, 4.0 was designed to be turned into an MMORPG and it's only a matter of time before Turbine loses the license OR makes DDO(2) 4.0 Style.

If you were like me, and you watched the videos of good ol' Chris Perkins and others pitching this garbage, you would've known it was trash without even needing to see the books.

[Velexia]

Perhaps I've misinterpreted this, but there's definitely a PHB II for 3.5e, though admittedly the PHB II for 3.5 doesn't seem to include any new races.

It's not one of the three core rulebooks, and is unnecessary for game play. Additionally, it came out much later.

[Shaamis]

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.


Careful Demoyn, you are getting close to baiting/instigating others to flame.

While I enjoy 4th edition D&D, and previous editions equally (for their own good.bad points) I agree, DDO will NOT be converting, because it would mean a whole re-writing of the game.

I would bet that a 4th edition MMO is on the way though, whether it's through Turbine, or another production house.

I play DDO because of the combat system, it is unique from ALL other MMOs, and have strayed from DDO in the past, but will always come back for the combat system, in all of its good/bad points.

[Inkblack]

I've been playing 4E once per week since the starter set came out. We alternate back and forth between two campaigns, and a third is in the works. My opinions:

Likes:
- Balanced leveling. You get something pretty much every level. There are no dead levels.
- Balanced classes. Everyone contributes at every level. It seemed (my opinion) that melees dominated the low levels, and casters dominated the higher levels in the old editions. And monks... carry them through the low levels, then eventually they become unstoppable.
- Difficult to game the system to create super-characters. You don't splash monk to pick up 6 points of wisdom AC.

Dislikes:
- Monster attack/defense scaling. Every time we fight something that is supposed to be a challenge, it NEVER misses us. Ok, I might be exaggerating a little bit, it misses us maybe 10-20% of the time. Our last boss fight, our ranger missed on every single attack, stretching over two gaming sessions. Our most accurate attacker had a 20% chance of hitting the boss. The boss landed 95% of his dominate powers on our two strikers (every time one saved, he dominated the other one, 1 miss in 5.5 hours) and meanwhile the remainder of us maybe landed one attack per round combined against him. Oh, and he had regeneration too -- that's why it took us 5.5 hours to take him down.
- Every Daily power should be reliable. Nothing sucks worse than rolling a 1 on something you only try on special occasions when you really need it, and then it is gone for the day.
- Cookie-cutter classes. Some powers are just more useful than others, so everyone winds up taking fairly similar ones. To be fair, this has improved quite a bit, but requires investing in the books.

Overall, I like 4E. Because so much thought has gone into balance, our play isn't dominated by someone that reads the D&D forums and creates a super-character. Those that look at their character once per week for 5 minutes can still contribute meaningfully.

One of our campaigns is frustratingly hard, and I'm not sure if its our level (12th) or the DM. If we fight something our level, it's pretty tough. Boss fights are usually a step away from a TPK. Our second campaign is from published material and seems pretty good.

I do think 4E is a more difficult system overall, our characters don't just tear through the campaigns like unstoppable juggernauts.

Ink

[quickgrif]

I find 4th to be very limiting. When you start putting labels on classes for roles (which makes it sound like WOW) you take a lot of diversity out. I tried to make my illusionist I love to play and could not do it with the players handbook.

[Taluron]

...I still can't figure out how to properly translate my multiclass characters to 4e. If anyone could help there I'd love to know...

Mutliclassing in 3e doesn't exist as such in 4e IMO. The "multi-class" rules in 4e seem closer to the 2e dual-class rules. Do this class for awhile and then do that class for awhile, then you can do a little bit of both. YEEHAA! Not that I personaly know anyone who ever USED the wierd dual-class rules.

In most of the 4e designer blogs I read, their response to the question you pose is (paraphrased) "Just put stuff together until you get something you like, and go with that. You just have to be creative. Or wait til we release that class in PHB47". One of my favorite example conversions had to do with using a Warlock as the 1-10 class for emulating one of the specialist wizards.

[Furluge]

Wow, there sure is a lot of hate for 4.0. And the sad thing is I doubt many of you have actually given it a real chance. You just encounter some new concept, some new idea, and your brain shuts off and the whole thing is just gone. I see it in just about every one of your posts screaming about the new edition. Hey, I understand, change is scary, and 4e was a big change. Lots of sacred cows, like Vancian spellcasting, were thrown on the fire to make things more intuitive and easier to understand. The structure of classes were consolidated and re-written to make things more accessible. A careful eye has been given to layout and presentation of information. There's lots of care and thought put into this edition and it shows. There's a lot to like here.

But what kills me the most is how you can say it's not D&D. D&D has always been about gathering a group of four to six players who each roleplay a brave adventurer who faces myriads of challenges where they defeat trials such as fearsome foes, insidious traps, diabolical puzzles, nefarious plots, lords and ladies, and master villains with only their strength, speed, guile, cunning, charisma, and arcane might to help them win the day and secure riches beyond their wildest dreams, all in preparation of the next challenge. That's what D&D does, and it's something that all editions of D&D do. The only difference has been what sort of rules mediate the whole thing.


For some specific rebuttals

Regarding class roles

Also, to those who have sticking points about roles need I remind you that classes in 2nd were divided into Warrior, Wizard, Priest, and Thief, and that these divisions closely line up to Defender, Controller, Leader, and Striker? Sure some of the classes in the groups from 2nd have moved from one group to another in the new edition, and sure the groups are now about what the classes, in general, do as opposed to their theme in the role of fluff, but it's still very much the same thing. Roles just exist to give players a general idea what a class is so they can decide if they want to learn more about the class without having to read the whole thing. They also make it easier to ensure you have the basic needs of an adventuring party covered, though 4e handles missing some of these roles very well too. Roles for monsters also are an immense help to DMs, allowing them to spend less time reading /every/ monster entry and instead only reading the monster entries that are going to be relevant to what their story needs.

Regarding Healing Surges

I can understand why this is odd, but allow me to note that healing surges do a few things which are advantageous to have. A) They take a lot of the burden off the leader to manage overall healing resources. That's right, no more, "Sorry guys, no more healing, the barbarian just ate it all." B) They help discourage "five minute days" where parties would fight one big battle, use all their resources, then rest. Healing surges make it so that each encounter is risky and deadly, but that after the combat after some rest the party will be able to continue onward to the next challenge. You'll find basically all of 4e is created with this idea in mind. C) They allow characters to mimic the kind of heroics players see in movies and read in books D) They follow the age old advice which has been repeatedly put into almost every edition of D&D that hit points do not equal damage, but that that also represent a heroes stamina and vitality, and their ability to continue turning lethal blows into glancing ones. This is used in 3e to explain how your character doesn't become more resistant to damage as he levels up, but he's just better at coping. Healing surges often represent inner reserves of stamina. The name "second wind" is very accurate as to their nature.

[Broadhead]

I only ever played 1st edition ADAD, and our character survival rate back then was pretty low. But it always felt good, it was always hugely satisfying to have surviced another week, let alone another campaign! We had 1 PHB, 1 DMG, a couple of monster manuals, and 400 tons of graph paper and pencils for our maps and notes. thAC0 was king. 2nd Ed ADAD was a blasphemy.

Then, about a million years later, I bought the 3.5 PHB just to get some insight into DDO Stormreach, and really, really enjoyed it. Was a nicely put-together, quality bit of gaming. Dunno about 4e, but I've heard some baaad things about it. *pulls blanket up higher*

[Paxtor]

Woah, people will get mad over anything they intuit as a way for a business to legitimately make money. I wonder what people are expecting businesses to do.

Anyway, 4th edition is not bad. The fact that it's separated into multiple Player Handbooks is also not bad. There are a wide array of classes which (because of the new power system) take enormously longer to design. I've been an DM for quite a while now and have seen several major transitions in D&D. This is certainly the largest, but it isn't a terrible blow to the system nor a simply money grubbing scam. It's a legitimately good system that also allows for the development of a wide array of optional material for those who want it.

Obviously, though, DDO shouldn't reprogram everything in an attempt to be more like 4th edition, though. That's just silly.

[Jendrak]

Frankley, I think they might as well try the 4th stuff. Given the fact that they have already done a serious hack job to just about every thing from the 3.5 system this game was based on. Seriously, how much worse could they screw it up.

[Furluge]

Woah, people will get mad over anything they intuit as a way for a business to legitimately make money. I wonder what people are expecting businesses to do.

Anyway, 4th edition is not bad. The fact that it's separated into multiple Player Handbooks is also not bad. There are a wide array of classes which (because of the new power system) take enormously longer to design. I've been an DM for quite a while now and have seen several major transitions in D&D. This is certainly the largest, but it isn't a terrible blow to the system nor a simply money grubbing scam. It's a legitimately good system that also allows for the development of a wide array of optional material for those who want it.

Obviously, though, DDO shouldn't reprogram everything in an attempt to be more like 4th edition, though. That's just silly.

Yeah they shouldn't, DDO is so far away from 4e it's not even funny anymore, but if I saw some of the 4e improvements making their way into DDO in modified form I'd certainly be all for it. ;)

Also one thing I'd like to point out that the ability of the system to have all these option books and not get "wonky" is something it's obvious the system seems to have had in mind when it was designed. The basic design of how classes and powers work really has a nice zen to it in the wide variety of character concepts it can handle. For example, no more will Psionics been relegated to a book of cheese that will give DMs headaches with integration like new skills, arcana vs psionics, etc. No, they're just classes, with their own theme and some defining mechanics, like psionic augmentation that make them different, but not broken, not a huge game changer of doom. Just another unique, interesting class. :) Same thing goes for the Swordmage. I imagine we might see things like Magic of Incarnum or some of the more exotic magic forms making their way in. In short, the system can introduce new, interesting things without having to build new systems for everything and duct-taping it all together and hoping it works. ;)

[GramercyRiff]

Healing surges further abstract HP's. Healing Surges and Second Winds are more about stamina/morale than they are about taking wounds. HP's represent you evading attacks, taking non lethal blows, and the energy spent doing this. Once you're "bloodied", that's the point where an enemy has actually drawn your blood. It's nothing life threatening, but you're wounded. When you drop below 0 HP's this is the point where you've taken a potentially lethal wound. This is the point where you need outside help to get back up.

While there are powers that allow you to spend healing surges, there is nothing supernatural about it, unless you're a supernatural class. It's easily explained by the rush of adrenaline, or boost of morale you get from a successful, triumphant attack.

The best thing about healing surges is that they expend little resources, the foremost being a standard action in most cases.


Frankley, I think they might as well try the 4th stuff. Given the fact that they have already done a serious hack job to just about every thing from the 3.5 system this game was based on. Seriously, how much worse could they screw it up.

Aye. I can't agree more. Not the part about DDO switching to 4E so much. I like 3.5 just fine. However, DDO is not 3.5. If anything, it's Bizarro 3.5. What I'd really like is a game that is like 3.5. DDO isn't it.

[Uska]

Yeah they shouldn't, DDO is so far away from 4e it's not even funny anymore, but if I saw some of the 4e improvements making their way into DDO in modified form I'd certainly be all for it. ;)

Also one thing I'd like to point out that the ability of the system to have all these option books and not get "wonky" is something it's obvious the system seems to have had in mind when it was designed. The basic design of how classes and powers work really has a nice zen to it in the wide variety of character concepts it can handle. For example, no more will Psionics been relegated to a book of cheese that will give DMs headaches with integration like new skills, arcana vs psionics, etc. No, they're just classes, with their own theme and some defining mechanics, like psionic augmentation that make them different, but not broken, not a huge game changer of doom. Just another unique, interesting class. :) Same thing goes for the Swordmage. I imagine we might see things like Magic of Incarnum or some of the more exotic magic forms making their way in. In short, the system can introduce new, interesting things without having to build new systems for everything and duct-taping it all together and hoping it works. ;)

I dont call one thing 4E does an improvement and yes I gave it a chance I ran it for one year and hosted two game days the munchkins around here love it and tried to get me to start running it again after I said no more of that garbarge funny thing is they wont play a good game that has risk for your characters like HMB they didnt like their characters being weaker and have some stats being subpar. In 4E most fighters look pretty much alike to me as to all the other classes. If they tried to add 4E they would kill what is here.

[Uska]

Healing surges further abstract HP's. Healing Surges and Second Winds are more about stamina/morale than they are about taking wounds. HP's represent you evading attacks, taking non lethal blows, and the energy spent doing this. Once you're "bloodied", that's the point where an enemy has actually drawn your blood. It's nothing life threatening, but you're wounded. When you drop below 0 HP's this is the point where you've taken a potentially lethal wound. This is the point where you need outside help to get back up.

While there are powers that allow you to spend healing surges, there is nothing supernatural about it, unless you're a supernatural class. It's easily explained by the rush of adrenaline, or boost of morale you get from a successful, triumphant attack.

The best thing about healing surges is that they expend little resources, the foremost being a standard action in most cases.



Aye. I can't agree more. Not the part about DDO switching to 4E so much. I like 3.5 just fine. However, DDO is not 3.5. If anything, it's Bizarro 3.5. What I'd really like is a game that is like 3.5. DDO isn't it.

Healing surges are one of the things I like least about 4E and the whole rest for a bit and your reset thing ugh, and dont get me started on all the clickie MMO powers characters have.

[DoctorWhofan]

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.

/worship

+1 rep! I LUV you Asp!

[Uska]

/worship

+1 rep! I LUV you Asp!

He is so right isnt he, of course before the release of that horrid thing I was arguing in favor of it but now I truly regret the money and time I spent on it.

[DoctorWhofan]

He is so right isnt he, of course before the release of that horrid thing I was arguing in favor of it but now I truly regret the money and time I spent on it.

WEll, you can do what the Hubby and I did: We found out the 4e makes a good steak (on the grill).

FUnny, we are so reluctant to part with stupid 3.0 books, we didn't even give it a moment's notice after our first 4e game.

[Uska]

WEll, you can do what the Hubby and I did: We found out the 4e makes a good steak (on the grill).

FUnny, we are so reluctant to part with stupid 3.0 books, we didn't even give it a moment's notice after our first 4e game.

Yeah I still have my original dnd books from 75 my 1st ed books 2nd ed, 3.0 and 3.5 gave my nephews my 4E books they are 11 and 13 and they said hey this is like wow on paper but not as fun. If I hadnt give my books to my nephews I would have had to try your grill idea but not sure if inked paper wouldnt have toxified my steaks.

[DoctorWhofan]

Yeah I still have my original dnd books from 75 my 1st ed books 2nd ed, 3.0 and 3.5 gave my nephews my 4E books they are 11 and 13 and they said hey this is like wow on paper but not as fun. If I hadnt give my books to my nephews I would have had to try your grill idea but not sure if inked paper wouldnt have toxified my steaks.

Hey, never SAID it was healthy...:p

What was scary was my total lack of remorse for Book Burning. And My husband to comment that was the most expensive charcoal we ever bought. In the end, our PnP got steaks and a new 3.5 campain started. Good Times.

[Aruke]

Please no.
4e is to D&D what Revolutions was to The Matrix, what Enterprise was to Star Trek, what Anakin Skywalker was to Darth Vader, what The Phantom Menace was to Empire, what Reload was to Master of Puppets...... and so on.

[timberhick]

/worship

+1 rep! I LUV you Asp!

Never understand this concept. It's pure money grab for WotC, but Paizo can publish a beta version of a game and that's just good common sense for them to do. No money grab there at all.

With every knew product for Pathfinder, these will not be money grabs either, That's just good common sense again.


Healing surges are one of the things I like least about 4E and the whole rest for a bit and your reset thing ugh, and dont get me started on all the clickie MMO powers characters have.
Yeah spell lists aren't clickie MMO powers characters have, nope not at all.

Alsao find it odd that all the concepts Erik stole straight from 4e and put into pathfinder are awesomesauce, but is garbage in 4e.

[joker965]

The question is simple. Is 4E "D&D" as would be recognizable by someone that played 1st or second edition 15-20 years ago? If all of the labels were take off would it even seem like it was D&D? No and absolutely not. 3rd edition at least still feels like PnP D&D with tons of rule changes. 4E is only D&D because WOTC owns the licence and can put whatever name they want on it.

Clarity: I'm not saying that D&D 4E is a bad game. I am saying that it is D&D in name only. Play it if you want but don't pretend that the haters don't have a point.

[timberhick]

Same was said(actually was a heckuva lot worse) when 3E came out, just as it was when 2E was released.

Really what I have found is people expect D&D to be a certain way no matter if that way is clunky, silly, outdated, etc. They just expect it.

I find it odd that with the big increase in power and playability of all of the classes in 4e, that there are so many who hate it. It always comes back to one aspect of the game:
Vancian spellcasting
That is ultimately what people think of as D&D. It's not the classes, weapons, races, AC/NADs, Thac0, etc. it is vancian spellcasting.

[mediocresurgeon]

Uska: I was going to congratulate you on your Triple Post, but then you later made a Quadruple Post. Nice work! In the future, just use the Edit button to add stuff to previous posts.

DDO should not change over to 4.0e.
This is because (SHOCK AND AWE) 4.0e is WoW on paper.






No, really. It is.


If you like 4.0e, that's cool with me. I don't. But if you want an MMO version of 4.0e, WoW might be the MMO for you.

[Cleitanious]

Is there any online resource which goes over the differences between 3.4e and 4.0e?

[quickgrif]

Same was said(actually was a heckuva lot worse) when 3E came out, just as it was when 2E was released.

Really what I have found is people expect D&D to be a certain way no matter if that way is clunky, silly, outdated, etc. They just expect it.

I find it odd that with the big increase in power and playability of all of the classes in 4e, that there are so many who hate it. It always comes back to one aspect of the game:
Vancian spellcasting
That is ultimately what people think of as D&D. It's not the classes, weapons, races, AC/NADs, Thac0, etc. it is vancian spellcasting.

I played all the way from 1st to 4th. I have tried them all and find good and bad things about them all. 4th however once again in an mmo not a rpg. Lets get one thing clear 1st to even 3rd took the old rules and refined and made new ways to work the rules. 4th decided to throw everything away and make a new game. Pathfinder took the old rules and refined them. Like it hate it up to you, but the fact that you have people who have grown to like a system in 3.5 to then have any support for said system yanked by wotc is plain bad taste.

[Uska]

Never understand this concept. It's pure money grab for WotC, but Paizo can publish a beta version of a game and that's just good common sense for them to do. No money grab there at all.

With every knew product for Pathfinder, these will not be money grabs either, That's just good common sense again.


Yeah spell lists aren't clickie MMO powers characters have, nope not at all.

Alsao find it odd that all the concepts Erik stole straight from 4e and put into pathfinder are awesomesauce, but is garbage in 4e.

I find pathfinder and erik to be pure garbarge myself, and yes they are clickie powers no matter how you try to deny it. I prefer HMB to dnd now myself and am sad that WoHC is only on the pages of a comicbook

[Uska]

Same was said(actually was a heckuva lot worse) when 3E came out, just as it was when 2E was released.

Really what I have found is people expect D&D to be a certain way no matter if that way is clunky, silly, outdated, etc. They just expect it.

I find it odd that with the big increase in power and playability of all of the classes in 4e, that there are so many who hate it. It always comes back to one aspect of the game:
Vancian spellcasting
That is ultimately what people think of as D&D. It's not the classes, weapons, races, AC/NADs, Thac0, etc. it is vancian spellcasting.

I have been playing dnd longer then many here have been alive and I could see dnd in 1st/2nd/3rd edtions (I started with original dnd) I cant see it in 4E and we didnt always use vancian we used spell point ideas even back in 1st editon and also tried giving bonus spells to wizards just like clerics, I dont like 4E because its bland and vanilla pretty much this wizard will be just like the next I find no playability in such dross.

[Uska]

Uska: I was going to congratulate you on your Triple Post, but then you later made a Quadruple Post. Nice work! In the future, just use the Edit button to add stuff to previous posts.

DDO should not change over to 4.0e.
This is because (SHOCK AND AWE) 4.0e is WoW on paper.






No, really. It is.


If you like 4.0e, that's cool with me. I don't. But if you want an MMO version of 4.0e, WoW might be the MMO for you.


I will post how I want and I reply to each post on each on I never have multi quoted and never will dont like it dont read my posts.

[Jendrak]

Same was said(actually was a heckuva lot worse) when 3E came out, just as it was when 2E was released.

Really what I have found is people expect D&D to be a certain way no matter if that way is clunky, silly, outdated, etc. They just expect it.

I find it odd that with the big increase in power and playability of all of the classes in 4e, that there are so many who hate it. It always comes back to one aspect of the game:
Vancian spellcasting
That is ultimately what people think of as D&D. It's not the classes, weapons, races, AC/NADs, Thac0, etc. it is vancian spellcasting.

Thats not really a fair comparison since 3e was pushed out about 3 years early(not exact but i remember it was not any where near ready) so that WoTC could get their name on it and not TSR. 3.5e was basically just one giant fix to everything that 3e messed up.

Now 4e they just flat out dumbed down so that the east-button weilding hords of Generation Playstation would buy it.

[eonfreon]

Well you think 4.0 is dumbed down do ya kids?
Well I played D&D Basic set back in 1980 when I was 9 years old. Now that was dumbed down.
Classes, hah!!
You were a Fighter, MU, Thief, Elf, Dwarf, or Halfling. And you liked it!!
There was no multi-class or dual-class or any of that shenanigans and you liked it!!!
Then I found that new-fangled AD&D stuff and I could play a Half-Orc even!! A freaking Half-Orc!!
ANd then 3.0 and 3.5 came out. What an obvious money grab that was. I wasn't fooled!

[Uska]

Well you think 4.0 is dumbed down do ya kids?
Well I played D&D Basic set back in 1980 when I was 9 years old. Now that was dumbed down.
Classes, hah!!
You were a Fighter, MU, Thief, Elf, Dwarf, or Halfling. And you liked it!!
There was no multi-class or dual-class or any of that shenanigans and you liked it!!!
Then I found that new-fangled AD&D stuff and I could play a Half-Orc even!! A freaking Half-Orc!!
ANd then 3.0 and 3.5 came out. What an obvious money grab that was. I wasn't fooled!

yes basic did dumb down ad&d itnt wasnt newfangled since it older then basic ad&d came out from 77-79 and basic came out in december of 79 you just found the wrong edtion first. and yeah I pretty much felt that 3.x and 3.5 was kind of a money grab just not quite as blatant as 4E is.

[Fecerak]

NEVER EVER DO THIS!

It will make the hole RPG as stupid and boring as every other RPG and remove the only fun, interesting and varying MMORPG currently in existance. Why ever play DDO then instead of some sucking game like WoW when WoW actually has got more special stuff than DDO, so yeah... Keep the 3.5 up and rather spend the time making more interesting classes like the Factotum, the Beguiler, and the Tome of Battle/Tome of Magic/Magic of Incarnum stuff...

And also... Add PrCs as the ones in PnP

[timberhick]

Thats not really a fair comparison since 3e was pushed out about 3 years early(not exact but i remember it was not any where near ready) so that WoTC could get their name on it and not TSR. 3.5e was basically just one giant fix to everything that 3e messed up.

Now 4e they just flat out dumbed down so that the easy-button wielding hordes of Generation Playstation would buy it.

Um WotC bought TSR in 1997, 3 years before 3e was released.

[Saice]

Disagree completely. It is my opinion that 3.0e is nothing more than a money-grab and has resulted in an abomination hardly recognizable as DnD.

This is, of course, only my opinion. Edited: for perspective

Yeah 2nd ed was so much better. :) ok I joke. I do not hold anything wrong with 4th ed. Honestly all the editions shifts have been big changes. Anyone remember how to figure out TACH0?

Honestly IMHO 4th is going back towards a more core idea. Fast table top combat with RP on the side. Which is what 1st and 2nd were more like. 3rd was more RP heavy with mechanics for everything you could think of. But it was good in its own way. What version is better at the end of the day really comes down to your own personal play style. One could argue (oh and they have) that chainmail and 1st ed were the best do to there simple rules and leaving most stuff just up to the DM to decide. Do you remember how you checked for traps in 1st? skill roll? Nope you actully RPed it out and the DM decided if that would work or not.

From a technical stand point it would be really hard to to mesh 3.5 and 4th eds into DDO without making one or both unrecognizable. Though a fresh new 4th ed game would be relatively easy to port over the PnP system of 4th with its anytime/once a battle/once a day power system.

[SquelchHU]

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.

I know I said I wasn't going to revive old threads to correct mistakes, but this one is a bit different.

I argue that DDO already is more like 4th edition than 3.5, despite using 3.5 rules and the only reason that works out for DDO, and doesn't make it horrible is because DDO is set in real time and therefore runs at a bearable pace. As a result it already has a lot in common with 4th, but having more in common with it would just make it a worse game.

How you say?

Let me count the ways:

Enemies have vastly inflated HP, leading to them needing 20-30 attacks or more to die in many cases and much more for 'boss' type enemies. This is the primary defining trait of 4th edition, and is very much present in DDO.

Large numbers of enemies irrelevant individually appear at once, such that you often have to put hundreds of creatures in their graves to complete a single adventure.

The entire focus of the game is on grinding for levels and loot, with only a cursory and insulting attempt to add any non treadmill features at best. Roleplay? Lol, what?

Enemies often have inflated levels, and deflated non HP stats. Which is why there are very few mobs lower than level 3 in 4th edition despite it starting players at level 1, and it is why you regularly fight enemies far over your level in DDO and don't really break a sweat there either because they're easier than their level makes them seem.

Higher level items are not necessarily better. In many cases they are worse. Just as a +1 Flaming of Pure Good (level 4) weapon will probably sell for more plat than most DDO items under level 16, there are many examples of lower level items in 4th edition being far better than higher level stuff, even going so far as to make a level 9 item better than anything else you could possibly use in that slot... oh and you'll have it for 70% of your career, since it's a 30 level game. So it's not even just a question of relative value, such as with the lowbie DDO weapon that will eventually get upgraded.

Forget about influencing the world in any way - it just won't happen. Entirely reasonable in an MMO due to design and programming limitations. Highly offensive in a tabletop game, where your level 30 character is just like your level 1 character except that his stats are much higher.

Now of course there are differences as well - for example, player skill can actually influence success at a given task in DDO for better or for worse, therefore the player is incentivized to participate in the game and become a better player. 4th edition? If it weren't for that whole 'Steve's not sitting in the chair, where is he?' thing you could automate the entire process of playing most any class with a script appromixately one paragraph in length.

When your entire participation in a game can be flawlessly duplicated by something anyone could type up in under a minute, why are you even there? You should be playing a game where your decisions can actually influence the outcome so that a script cannot perfectly mimic you. In other words, 4th edition suffers the same flaw that many other MMORPGs suffer - the process can be entirely automated and you'd never know the difference. Though to be fair, you'd probably need more than a paragraph to 'play' WoW, or EvE, or EQ.

But that's just one more strike against it.

[whysper]

Do not forget a reliance on clickies :p

[SquelchHU]

Do not forget a reliance on clickies :p

Nah, I didn't catch that one until I started reading through the thread. And it's really not like 'Clickies' at all. In 4th edition you always go top down, because it's the only way you can even attempt to shorten the auto attack grind fest, that you cannot step away from to eat a sammich/watch porn/otherwise do something interesting like you could in any other click and wait MMO.

In DDO the clickies actually give you options that meaningfully influence the outcome of combat and in many cases give you new options ranging from the hilarious (Grease clickie) to the broadening (Divine Power clickie, when low on mana to continue contributing something), to the heightening (Heroism clickie).


Hey, never SAID it was healthy...:p

What was scary was my total lack of remorse for Book Burning. And My husband to comment that was the most expensive charcoal we ever bought. In the end, our PnP got steaks and a new 3.5 campain started. Good Times.

...I love you. :o

And much rep is given out. Now all we need is someone posting humorous pictures of cats, and we have the whole set of rep abusing posts. ^.^

[Furluge]

Same was said(actually was a heckuva lot worse) when 3E came out, just as it was when 2E was released.

Really what I have found is people expect D&D to be a certain way no matter if that way is clunky, silly, outdated, etc. They just expect it.

I find it odd that with the big increase in power and playability of all of the classes in 4e, that there are so many who hate it. It always comes back to one aspect of the game:
Vancian spellcasting
That is ultimately what people think of as D&D. It's not the classes, weapons, races, AC/NADs, Thac0, etc. it is vancian spellcasting.

I'd like to point this out because it's true. I remember when 3rd came out. I remember the wailing and gnashing of teeth. It wasn't pretty then either. "It's an MMO" is really their way of saying, "They took away vancian spell-casting and balanced the spell-casters with everyone else."


Is there any online resource which goes over the differences between 3.4e and 4.0e?

Not that I can think of, though the D&D wikipedia entry might have something. (It also really illuminates how big changes have been from edition to edition.)

There is however something called the D&D test drive (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/TryDnD.aspx) which has quick-play rules, two modules, and a character generator you can download for free to try out 4th edition.


I dont call one thing 4E does an improvement and yes I gave it a chance I ran it for one year and hosted two game days the munchkins around here love it and tried to get me to start running it again after I said no more of that garbarge funny thing is they wont play a good game that has risk for your characters like HMB they didnt like their characters being weaker and have some stats being subpar. In 4E most fighters look pretty much alike to me as to all the other classes. If they tried to add 4E they would kill what is here.

First of all, no offense, but by the way you talk about your players, you sound like the kind of person who should never ever be the DM. There's a very strong "DM vs the players" sentiment there. I can't imagine what you really feel, but if it's anything like what it seems to be it must be pretty strong and there is never anything good about DM vs the players.

Second, you want a list a improvements 4th edition brought to the table? Ok, here's everything I can think of off the top of my head that was an improvement that 4th brought to the table. Not that I expect you to listen to it or even attempt to read it. You're a tried and true fanatic so nothing I say is every going to sway you. The fact is that the game changed a lot. That's what you really hate about it. The game could improve everything about D&D ever, and Jesus could fly out of the PHB when you open it and you'd still hate it because it's changed. ;p

And actually I don't really mind that so much. Not wanting to change form what you're comfortable with is ok I suppose. But trying to rationalize it and bash everyone else who welcomes change just isn't kosher.

1. Cone and Burst templates replaced with easy to follow Burst and Blast squares which do the same thing but do not require memorizing the square pattern or having a template, such as the ones by steel squire. No more groans from Entangle being cast. Wire coat hangers everywhere breathe a sigh of relief.

2. Skill system was redesigned so similar skills were combined into groups, eliminating the need for skill synergy as synergistic activities are now part of the same skill.

3. Skill point system replaced with / untrained / trained / skill focus setup. Generally in this game and 3e what happens is players will max out certain skills and just continually put a point into it each level to keep it maxed. Now this simply happens automatically as training and skill focus are flat bonuses that can be given to skills and all characters get a half their level as a bonus to skill checks.

4. Large Base Attack Bonus, Fort, Reflex, Will tables replaced with static bonuses at level 1 based on class and defenses increase by 1 every other level (IE: Half level). I'm never going to forget what a pain it was leveling up my Fighter/Wizard/Spellsword at level 10 having to references three different charts.

5. Game is stable and consistent through levels 1-30, where as 3rd has a "sweet spot" of 5-12. Before level 5 characters are rather weak, after level 12 the game breaks down.

6. Vancian spell casting is gone. Spells now use a unified easy to understand implementation that is shared by all powers regardless of the power source while still keeping their flavor due to the properties available to the powers themselves. Fireballs still explode and require good reflex to avoid and roast your party members if you're not careful, while divine casters often need not worry about this as their offensive prayers usually only hurt enemies, but they tend to have less offense in comparison. Martial characters still primarily deal in AC. Players do not need to learn whole new systems to understand spell casters or psionic characters.

7. Powers system allows for all classes to shine in their own way and emulate the feats of heroism that players are accustomed to in legends, stories, books, movies, and yes, sometimes video games. Large number of powers to choose from allows characters to make their character different from others of the same class by the selections they make. Power selections also allow martial characters to differentiate themselves from other martial characters more so than in previous editions, where before only spell-casters got that kind attention. Rogues in combat are no longer just a defined by their sneak attack, but their ability to blind, cripple, slip through defenses, etc.

8. Races strengthened and made more unique. Races are more important throughout a character's career thanks to more feats and class options related to race. Had side effect of no longer requiring ECL for a large number of classic D&D races.

9. Combat rules streamlined and unneeded complexity removed from key areas.

10. Roles for Monsters and Character Classes make it easier for the DM or Players to narrow down their search for what they want to play or what monsters to include and careful choose which entries they want to read fully.

11. 3rd edition followed a "battle of attrition" model of balance, where upon players would face a large number of easy challenges that would expend their resources and player's mistakes would come out most of all in later encounters where resources they spent in the beginning encounters cause their downfall. This lead to the "30 minute day" where players would get up, fight something huge, then goto bed. (The length of time it takes to run encounters encouraged this as well.) This lead to DM's frequently having to pump things up for the one big fight to work correctly. 4th edition centers more upon each encounter being dangerous and less on attrition between encounters, encouraging parties to continue adventuring.

12. Encounters are now easier to create. Monster types make it easy for DM's to get ideas how a group of monsters interact with each other, avoiding game-breaking combinations. The effects of traps in an encounter with monsters are now easier to determine. As a result, traps are more often parts of combats rather than "That thing that happens between combats".

13. Skill challenges provide a framework for DM's to visualize and create a variety of non-combat based encounters. (Previously you just kind of winged it.) Skill challenge system is flexible and abstract so it is not confining.

14. DC's and Damage table in DM makes it easier for DMs to calculate original or unexpected things, such as terrain not thought as such being used as a weapon

15. Fantastic terrain added

16. Disease system is more robust, with variable effects dependant on the stage of the disease on the affected character.

17. Sizes of creatures adjusted and consolidated. No more piles of tiny sizes most people don't remember and no more colossal size that filled up most people's game mats. Have you seen that Colossal Red Dragon mini in person? It's huge. It's a statue, not a mini.

18. Classes always gain something each level. No "dead levels".

19. Epic levels (21-30) no long require a separate system to use and are part of the core game. Note that Level's 13-30 in 3rd are past the sweet spot of 5-12 and game mechanics break down in those levels.

20. Epic destinies get players to think about how they want to exit the game when it's over. Epic destinies have many important world-changing events in them which can spur on future campaigns.

21. Paragon Paths are easier to use than Prestige Classes and serve the purpose of specializing a character better than prestige classes

22. System is written from the ground up to accommodate future books and expansion without breaking the core system.

23. Weapon groups with their feats and the magic items eligible for those groups allows for lots of flavor to be tied to a weapon type, with the added benefit that newly created weapons do not need new rules added to use these feats / magic items

24. Encounters are generally based upon groups of monsters opposed to 3rd ed being largely based on "The one big thing". This makes movement and tactics more important, making combat more interesting. 4th edition however can still easily do "the one big thing" very well, where as third has lots of difficulty with groups of monsters, especially if you're talking about more than a pair of the same monster.

25. Monster stat blocks are easier to read and are written with running them at the table in mind. Running monsters is vastly easier as a result.

26. Death and dying rules allow for the character's health to be taken into effect (Death at -Bloodied instead of -10), while at the same time making it so the dying state is more dramatic, yet simpler to manager. The three failed death saves per encounter and you're dead is simpler and more effective than the -1 hit point or 10% stabilization a round. The unneeded 0 hit point condition of disabled has been removed.

27. Magic item slots consolidated. With three primary slots, weapon, armor, and neck, and the rest being supplemental. Stat boosters items that were required for progression removed.

28. Encumbrance rules simplified. No more un-wieldy chart that just gets ignored.

29. Rest and recovery simplified. No more need to play the cleric-rest healing game

30. Swimming and flying simplified and made easier to understand and run creatures with those abilities or adventures in those settings.

31. Frustrating grapple rules eliminated. Monsters that were grapple-centric now have abilities to represent this, making them simpler to run while keeping their flavor.

32. Healing surges take much of the need to manage healing resources off of the cleric. Healing surges encourage the encounter-centric game balance and de-emphasize attrition-based challenges.


A) Enemies have vastly inflated HP, leading to them needing 20-30 attacks or more to die in many cases and much more for 'boss' type enemies. This is the primary defining trait of 4th edition, and is very much present in DDO.

B) Large numbers of enemies irrelevant individually appear at once, such that you often have to put hundreds of creatures in their graves to complete a single adventure.

C) The entire focus of the game is on grinding for levels and loot, with only a cursory and insulting attempt to add any non treadmill features at best. Roleplay? Lol, what?

D) Enemies often have inflated levels, and deflated non HP stats. Which is why there are very few mobs lower than level 3 in 4th edition despite it starting players at level 1, and it is why you regularly fight enemies far over your level in DDO and don't really break a sweat there either because they're easier than their level makes them seem.

E) Higher level items are not necessarily better. In many cases they are worse. Just as a +1 Flaming of Pure Good (level 4) weapon will probably sell for more plat than most DDO items under level 16, there are many examples of lower level items in 4th edition being far better than higher level stuff, even going so far as to make a level 9 item better than anything else you could possibly use in that slot... oh and you'll have it for 70% of your career, since it's a 30 level game. So it's not even just a question of relative value, such as with the lowbie DDO weapon that will eventually get upgraded.

F) Forget about influencing the world in any way - it just won't happen. Entirely reasonable in an MMO due to design and programming limitations. Highly offensive in a tabletop game, where your level 30 character is just like your level 1 character except that his stats are much higher.

G) Now of course there are differences as well - for example, player skill can actually influence success at a given task in DDO for better or for worse, therefore the player is incentivized to participate in the game and become a better player. 4th edition? If it weren't for that whole 'Steve's not sitting in the chair, where is he?' thing you could automate the entire process of playing most any class with a script appromixately one paragraph in length.

G Cont.) When your entire participation in a game can be flawlessly duplicated by something anyone could type up in under a minute, why are you even there? You should be playing a game where your decisions can actually influence the outcome so that a script cannot perfectly mimic you. In other words, 4th edition suffers the same flaw that many other MMORPGs suffer - the process can be entirely automated and you'd never know the difference. Though to be fair, you'd probably need more than a paragraph to 'play' WoW, or EvE, or EQ.

But that's just one more strike against it.

It's pretty obvious from your points either you didn't play the game or you never gave it a chance. C and F are real offenders in particular. The 4th edition of D&D focuses on all the same activities that previous editions did. No where in the way the game system is written is it less encouraging of roleplaying. In fact there is more on roleplaying and more prominently than in previous editions, not less. F is the same way. You can influence the world just like you could in previous editions. Your actions and how you go about your adventuring career influence the world your in. Things change. To think you couldn't influence the world you'd have to either have a DM who wouldn't work with you, be expecting it to fall into your lap via a spell, or you'd have to ignore that the majority of epic destinies that have been written all have world-changing built into them. (My favorite example is the Mourning Savior from the Eberron Player's Guide.)

Point G is also pretty much out there. In general 4th requires you to be more skilled, not less so, because as defenses now scale up along with attacks you need to use good tactics and things like +2 for combat advantage are actually more useful, where as before with your monstrous BAB you could be assured you were going to hit what you aimed at while you were locked into your pattern of: Get up to big monster, attack four times, hope you don't die, repeat. Oh also, please tell me how playing "Pun Pun" in 3rd edition is skillful. ;p

Point B just shows you don't understand the design philosophy in 4th where generally a party of adventurers faces off against group of monsters about the same size. The idea behind this is it makes it easier to scale for party size in case it fluctuates, but also it causes tactics and movement to be more important. This was thought to be better than just plopping the big thing with a high CR in front of you and beating on it until it dies.

Point D makes me wonder if you paid attention to 3rd any. Monsters that are higher levels than the PCs appear very frequently in 3rd edition, actually more so as people kept adjusting to the whole "30 minute day" habit. Monsters in 4th generally act appropriate for their level and their type. Level is not the sole indicator of strength for a monster in forth, but merely a guide for what it's an equal challenge to in an encounter. Don't forget, CR in 3rd was what a single monster was a challenge for in 3rd (Because 3rd encouraged single monsters) where as the level in 4th assumes a group of monsters that level equal to the PC, with minions equal to 1/4 a PC, elites equal to 2 PCs, and solos equal to 5 PCs. Again, that was done to make it easier to scale your encounters for party size rather than playing it by ear like was previously done.

On Point A, in general I find we get through more combats with more complex elements than we could in 4th, so the idea that the monster's HP is inflated to make combat drag on isn't really translating over to play.

On your last point, point E. Really? It's all a matter of taste. People have had similar things to say about every edition of D&D. Why are you surprised that people still are still saying the same thing about 4th? If I had a dollar for every time I was told in 3.0 to not get enhancement bonuses past +1 because things such as frost and holy were better I'd be rich.

[SquelchHU]

Huge response to Uska removed. Even though most of it is wrong, he can break down how on his own.


It's pretty obvious from your points either you didn't play the game or you never gave it a chance. C and F are real offenders in particular. The 4th edition of D&D focuses on all the same activities that previous editions did. No where in the way the game system is written is it less encouraging of roleplaying. In fact there is more on roleplaying and more prominently than in previous editions, not less. F is the same way. You can influence the world just like you could in previous editions. Your actions and how you go about your adventuring career influence the world your in. Things change. To think you couldn't influence the world you'd have to either have a DM who wouldn't work with you, be expecting it to fall into your lap via a spell, or you'd have to ignore that the majority of epic destinies that have been written all have world-changing built into them. (My favorite example is the Mourning Savior from the Eberron Player's Guide.)

You use a power out of combat. What happens? No one knows.

You use your axe to attack the door? Can you break it down? Prior to 4th this was clearly defined. Now? Maybe you can, maybe the door is magically immune to damage because it's not flagged as breakable.

You kill an enemy and take his sword. What does it do? No one knows. What if the sword is used to deliver a poison attack? Is that a factor of the sword, the creature holding the sword, or does it just kind of happen? No one knows.

Just like in a video game, the more you try to be creative with it and interact with it in unexpected ways, the more you hit these invisible walls of programming limitations. Except it's a tabletop game, what programming limitations? There aren't any, the edition just acts as if they are out of condescension for those playing and running it. It is a very poor idea to adopt a condescending attitude towards your customers, as it results in poor sales. How poor? How about Wizards of the Coast stating in court under oath that they have sold 'hundreds of thousands of copies' of the core books in total, because they were trying to claim losses and therefore needed to make their numbers appear as impressive as possible to maximize any payout they get for damages. As every single 4th edition book is a core book, we are not talking about hundreds of thousands of sales divided by 3. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of sales divided by 15 or more. It is a level of sales comparable to 3.5 at the end of its product lifetime. On a new product. Are those low sales figures entirely because of this poor attitude and restrictive game? Of course not, there are many more crippling flaws that scare away consumer dollars faster than you can say 'Cause Fear'. Is it one of the bigger ones? I'd say so.


Point G is also pretty much out there. In general 4th requires you to be more skilled, not less so, because as defenses now scale up along with attacks you need to use good tactics and things like +2 for combat advantage are actually more useful, where as before with your monstrous BAB you could be assured you were going to hit what you aimed at while you were locked into your pattern of: Get up to big monster, attack four times, hope you don't die, repeat. Oh also, please tell me how playing "Pun Pun" in 3rd edition is skillful. ;p

Yes, because it takes so much more skill to say 'I attack' 20 times instead of 2. Why, it's so much more skill that you could not even rig a tape recorder to repeat it. And you should, because you're going to be saying 'I attack' a lot. Well, your actual phrase will be a bit longer, and essentially random but regardless you're going to go down your list of dailies, go down your list of encounters, then at will a bunch of times, while wishing this MMO had an auto attack feature, because you could use a snack about now. Not to mention you will waste a lot of turns entirely missing, which is even worse than knocking off 1 or 2% of the massive HP bar.


Point B just shows you don't understand the design philosophy in 4th where generally a party of adventurers faces off against group of monsters about the same size. The idea behind this is it makes it easier to scale for party size in case it fluctuates, but also it causes tactics and movement to be more important. This was thought to be better than just plopping the big thing with a high CR in front of you and beating on it until it dies.

So eager to attack even a neutral statement of fact used as a basis of comparison. Why, it is almost as if you feel an overzealous need to protect your favored product from any and all criticism.


Point D makes me wonder if you paid attention to 3rd any. Monsters that are higher levels than the PCs appear very frequently in 3rd edition, actually more so as people kept adjusting to the whole "30 minute day" habit. Monsters in 4th generally act appropriate for their level and their type. Level is not the sole indicator of strength for a monster in forth, but merely a guide for what it's an equal challenge to in an encounter. Don't forget, CR in 3rd was what a single monster was a challenge for in 3rd (Because 3rd encouraged single monsters) where as the level in 4th assumes a group of monsters that level equal to the PC, with minions equal to 1/4 a PC, elites equal to 2 PCs, and solos equal to 5 PCs. Again, that was done to make it easier to scale your encounters for party size rather than playing it by ear like was previously done.

When you fight an enemy higher level than you in 3.5, you are up for a significantly harder fight. The primary reason for this is that it probably has abilities you can't counter yet due to being higher level but simply having better stats is also a factor. Then you get into DDO and enemies have much more HP, but the other stats are worse. Or you get into 4th, where the primary defining trait of any non minion is a small truckload of HP. Unless they're an elite, in which case they get an 18 wheeler full of HP instead.

Now had you attempted to argue that the challenge of a hard 3.5 enemy could be easily neutralized by denying it the ability to act while your side is still capable of taking actions themselves you would have a point. There are many different effective means of crowd control and other such action denial.

Of course I would turn right back around and utter one simple word that shatters that argument. Orbizard.

On Point A, in general I find we get through more combats with more complex elements than we could in 4th, so the idea that the monster's HP is inflated to make combat drag on isn't really translating over to play.


On your last point, point E. Really? It's all a matter of taste. People have had similar things to say about every edition of D&D. Why are you surprised that people still are still saying the same thing about 4th? If I had a dollar for every time I was told in 3.0 to not get enhancement bonuses past +1 because things such as frost and holy were better I'd be rich.

Nope. A +3 sword is not as good as a +1 Holy sword, but it is still better than a +1 sword. There are still benefits gained from the upgrade even if the upgrade itself is not optimal. Therefore, you are always moving upwards even though you would move upwards better by taking the Holy sword and casting Greater Magic Weapon on it.

In 4th, if you get a high level vendor trash item (and most of them are) you are often better off straight up trading it for a lower level item, even if said item costs even less than the sale value simply because you would get more use out of the lower level item than either the high level item or 20% of the high level item's 'value' in gold. This happens because there isn't any rhyme or reason as to what abilities are what level, they just randomly have levels assigned to them by darts and are priced accordingly. It would be like 3.5 where making your sword 'Flaming' is a +8 property, and making it cast a DC 30 Destruction on every hit is a +1 property. Even though the Destruction sword is at least 10 times as good under the best of cases. And I just made it up to illustrate just how stark the contrast is between the good loot and the vendor trash.

[Aspenor]

3.5 = DnD for the diligent and intelligent
4.0 = DnD for the lazy

[SquelchHU]

'You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Aspenor again'.

One more thing I forgot to mention.


That is true: If you pull aggro and other players are trying to melee the monster, then you should probably switch to melee instead of running it away from them.

But here's the problem: If you don't pull aggro and other players are meleeing the monster, then you should switch to melee and run up and help them. Your melee attacks will do more damage than ranged, and since you don't have aggro then getting close like that won't put you at increased risk.

That's the paradox of DDO's ranged combat, and why it turns out that the truly skilled archer is one who hardly ever uses a bow outside of Manyshot. Melee and ranged combat doesn't stack.

Look at the possible outcomes of combining melee and ranged in one group:
1. Melee and melee stacks, because if two guys are in melee with a monster putting out 100 DPS each, then a third guy can go join them in melee and bring the total DPS up to 300.
2. Ranged and ranged stacks, because if two guys are ranging a monster putting out 50 DPS each, then a third guy can join them ranging and bring the total DPS up to 150.
3. Ranged does not usefully stack with melee, because if two guys are in melee and you start ranging you'll add less DPS than if you also used melee.
4. Melee does not stack with ranged, because if two guys are ranging and you go for melee, then either:
a. You won't pull aggro, and will add little DPS because your time is spent chasing the monster.
b. You will pull aggro, meaning that the ranged guys are wasting their time shooting something that isn't chasing them.

If the DDO developers want ranged combat to become an effective part of gameplay, they'll have to change the mechanics to alter how ranged kiting works. For example, if a monster is strong in melee but bad at catching someone who's kiting it, then it could have a preferential aggro factor to attack enemies within reach. Or ranged player characters could be given a damage bonus if they are stationary while attacking, so that they get good DPS only if they're not kiting.

Now this quote is by Angelus_dead (http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p=2548743&postcount=21), and it's about DDO in a thread about the role of ranged damage.

Yet, were you to change his post so that it instead referred to 4th edition, it would still be entirely accurate. The difference is that since ranged attacks are viable in 4th edition, you can just beat nearly everything by kiting it. The few things you cannot kite, because they are too fast or can actually shoot back you can defeat by having better ranged attacks, instead of merely any ranged attacks.

Melee and ranged attacks conflicting with each other is a design flaw since parties are supposed to be balanced and versatile. It can potentially be justified in a video game, but not in a tabletop game.

[RictrasShard]

3.5 = DnD for the diligent and intelligent
4.0 = DnD for the lazy

Not at all true.

In 4E, I get a great blend of using both my roleplaying skills and my strategic combat skills. I haven't had this much fun with D&D since first edition.

[GramercyRiff]

Nice post Furlage. That's a good rundown of an unbiased look at 4E. I've read and heard a lot of irrational dislike of 4E. I've also read and heard a lot of rational dislike of 4E. Most of the irrational comes from these forums. I actually can't remember reading one rational reason why someone dislikes 4E here.

For the record I prefer 3.5. I see 4E for what it is though, a miniature skirmish game that uses narrative and role playing to tell a story/create mythology. That's pretty much what 3.5 is too, just with different rules.

[Roziel_Longblade]

Not at all true.

In 4E, I get a great blend of using both my roleplaying skills and my strategic combat skills. I haven't had this much fun with D&D since first edition. The upgrade from AD&D to 3.0 was as close to true art as I have seen any written RPG come. They did a complete rule change but made the change seemless. I am all for maximizing revenue but what WoTC did with 4E was like 'tagging' a Picasso. It feels less like D&D than DDO.

Pathfinder is the only logical PnP material that DDO should to for inspiration when it comes to updates. It is the update WoTC should have released. Of course this is my opinion but I think many would agree if they picked up a copy.

[RictrasShard]

The upgrade from AD&D to 3.0 was as close to true art as I have seen any written RPG come. They did a complete rule change but made the change seemless. I am all for maximizing revenue but what WoTC did with 4E was like 'tagging' a Picasso. It feels less like D&D than DDO.

To me and those in my gaming group who played way back when, while 4E is much different in form, it captures the spirit of first edition quite nicely. It focuses on creativity and having fun without having the rules get in the way.

[Tallyn]

There has been a lot of posts already on the subject. Basically, to me it boils down that 4th Edition is more simplified and intuitive, but at the cost of functionality and customizability. Personally I would never trade functionality and customizability for simplicity and ease.

I will say this, if I'm not mistaken there is at least 1 developer on DDO's team that knows what happens when you make sweeping drastic changes to a game when you've already have an established and loyal playerbase. You pretty much lose all of your loyal playerbase. I was there for the abomination that turned SWG (Star Wars Galaxies) from a game with high customizability of character skills and professions never before seen in any MMO, with an admittedly high learning curve, into a MMO that would make WoW look like it was designed by Stephen Hawking and Albert Eistein.

[joker965]

Nice post Furlage. That's a good rundown of an unbiased look at 4E. I've read and heard a lot of irrational dislike of 4E. I've also read and heard a lot of rational dislike of 4E. Most of the irrational comes from these forums. I actually can't remember reading one rational reason why someone dislikes 4E here.

For the record I prefer 3.5. I see 4E for what it is though, a miniature skirmish game that uses narrative and role playing to tell a story/create mythology. That's pretty much what 3.5 is too, just with different rules.

All the way from original D&D up to AD&D prior to 3E the game was clearly recognizable as the same game. Things were mostly just added on. The core game mechanics were not changed much.

With the start of 3E Wizards of the Coast made a business decision to rewrite the game mechanics. (possibly a good business decision) They own the name D&D so they can do whatever they want with the game. If they wanted to change the combat mechanics to rock/paper/scissors player vs. DM they could. (will that be 5E?) With 4E they have just done it again. 4E may be a good game but just like 3E it is not really D&D anymore from a game mechanic perspective. From what I can see it has gone even farther away from anything that would be recognized as D&D.

Me and all of my friends haven't given them a dime since about 2001. The dumbest thing they ever did was discontinuing the publishing of older editions when they come out with new ones. If they were still putting out materials for the older editions my friends would still be spending the thousands of dollars a year that we always did before. Now it is $0.

[Roziel_Longblade]

To me and those in my gaming group who played way back when, while 4E is much different in form, it captures the spirit of first edition quite nicely. It focuses on creativity and having fun without having the rules get in the way.
I started with 2nd edition but I have seen the first edition books. Even though 2nd was miered in conflicting rules and a glut of rule systems, it came about because of the oversimplification of 1st edition. 3.0 was a streamlining of rules without losing any of the potential complications that the unexpected interactions between gamers and the DM can generate. I think moving towards the oversimplification of 1st is a step back. However I fully understand how you can see it as a coming home of sorts.

If they wanted a new D&D lite they should have rolled out a new version of Basic D&D.

[Tallyn]

Thats not really a fair comparison since 3e was pushed out about 3 years early(not exact but i remember it was not any where near ready) so that WoTC could get their name on it and not TSR. 3.5e was basically just one giant fix to everything that 3e messed up.

Now 4e they just flat out dumbed down so that the east-button weilding hords of Generation Playstation would buy it.

By the way, WotC (the original WotC owners that is) saved TSR from disappearing from the business world altogether. A lot of us who were playing back around then will agree, while they weren't perfect, they were good for D&D at the time.

[Roziel_Longblade]

by The Way, Wotc (the Original Wotc Owners That Is) Saved Tsr From Disappearing From The Business World Altogether. A Lot Of Us Who Were Playing Back Around Then Will Agree, While They Weren't Perfect, They Were Good For D&d At The Time. Qft

[RictrasShard]

If they were still putting out materials for the older editions my friends would still be spending the thousands of dollars a year that we always did before. Now it is $0.

In the TSR days, there was not enough published material in a given year for a person to spend thousands of dollars on, unless they were buying numerous copies of each.

[Xenus_Paradox]

Well, at least the money grab comment was fact. How else can you explain that WotC has published MULTIPLE player's handbooks? They didn't even offer the entire game in one book, they have intentionally forced players to buy multiple books to put themselves on an even footing with what is contained in only ONE book of 3.5.

Not to mention, they have been pulling 3.5 books off the shelves, and have effectively eliminated their support for the 3.5 system. It's their way of saying: buy our books, spend more money.

The PH1 contains full rules for players. PH2 and onward contain ONLY new races, classes, items, etc. They are in all ways comparable to 3.5's Complete X series. Same with DMG 2, MM2, etc. You can play the game with the 3 core books, just like always. PH1 contains 8 races and 8 classes, full rules on using powers, skills, making attacks... everything the 3.5 PHB had. Furthermore, TSR stopped supporting AD&D 1st when 2nd was released. WotC stopped supporting 2nd when DnD 3 was released. And they stopped supporting 3.0 when 3.5 hit. It's not a "moneygrab", it's Business 101- encourage people to buy the product you're still making and not the discontinued one.

And as an individual with an IQ of 140, I would LOVE to play a 4th Edition MMORPG. As long as it's not DDO. DDO is based on 3.5, and should stay that way.

[Xenus_Paradox]

Me and all of my friends haven't given them a dime since about 2001. The dumbest thing they ever did was discontinuing the publishing of older editions when they come out with new ones. If they were still putting out materials for the older editions my friends would still be spending the thousands of dollars a year that we always did before. Now it is $0.

Me and my friends haven't given Chevrolet a dime since about 1965. The dumbest thing they ever did was discontinuing the production of older models when they come out with new ones. If they were still putting out parts for the older models my friends would still be spending the thousands of dollars a year that we always did before. Now it is $0.

[Aerniel]

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.

I R Kelly all over your posts sir!

R KELLY!

[SquelchHU]

All the way from original D&D up to AD&D prior to 3E the game was clearly recognizable as the same game. Things were mostly just added on. The core game mechanics were not changed much.

With the start of 3E Wizards of the Coast made a business decision to rewrite the game mechanics. (possibly a good business decision) They own the name D&D so they can do whatever they want with the game. If they wanted to change the combat mechanics to rock/paper/scissors player vs. DM they could. (will that be 5E?) With 4E they have just done it again. 4E may be a good game but just like 3E it is not really D&D anymore from a game mechanic perspective. From what I can see it has gone even farther away from anything that would be recognized as D&D.

Me and all of my friends haven't given them a dime since about 2001. The dumbest thing they ever did was discontinuing the publishing of older editions when they come out with new ones. If they were still putting out materials for the older editions my friends would still be spending the thousands of dollars a year that we always did before. Now it is $0.

This is not entirely correct. While the differences between 3rd and 2nd are more significant than those between 2nd and 1st, they are not insurmountable, which is why they were able to release conversion tables. Many spells (but not all) are the same, hit dice up to level 10 are the same, THAC0 modifiers become BAB...

You can't convert 3rd to 4th at all. Not just because they never bothered releasing a conversion table, but because most of it cannot be converted at all. There's no parallel in the 4th edition world for any such thing as an illusionist or necromancer, there's no parallel for characters who can actually influence the world in any way, nothing. Take any 3.5 party, and at least 75% of it is totally unconvertable. Not even the basics translate well, as suddenly they lose around half their damage output or more (likely much more) and also have to deal with enemies with much higher HP totals.

Anyways, Asp is right. 3.5 core offered Barbarians, Bards, Clerics, Druids, Fighters, Monks, Paladins, Rangers, Rogues, Sorcerers, and Wizards. 4th edition core gives you the Clerics, the Fighters, the Paladins, the Rangers, the Rogues, and the Wizards. It also gives you a gimp Ranger in the form of a Warlock, and something that vaguely resembles a Bard in the form of the Warlord.

To get the Barbarian, Druid, Monk, and Sorcerer you need other books. If you don't consider the Warlord a Bard replacement you need that too. Combine it with their 'everything is core' policy and they're encouraged to spread it out intentionally, publishing a high volume of books. Which is exactly what they have done, and continue to do despite these books not selling well individually or collectively. And the way 4th edition is written, you get a very low concentration of content simply because it takes so many words to say that you do a minor amount of damage or minor damage + status. Just like the other few hundred things in there that only differ by being associated with a different but mostly interchangeable stat and possibly a different weapon as well.

To those who want to see a 4th edition MMO: Know how you hate portal beating in the Shroud? Or that pit fiend guy whose name I cannot spell correctly at the moment who has a six digit figure for HP in the same area?

Imagine if that was the entire game.

[Tallyn]

Wow, are you really this dumb or are you just being disingenuous? The PH1 contains full rules for players. PH2 and onward contain ONLY new races, classes, items, etc. They are in all ways comparable to 3.5's Complete X series. Same with DMG 2, MM2, etc. You can play the game with the 3 core books, just like always. PH1 contains 8 races and 8 classes, full rules on using powers, skills, making attacks... everything the 3.5 PHB had. Furthermore, TSR stopped supporting AD&D 1st when 2nd was released. WotC stopped supporting 2nd when DnD 3 was released. And they stopped supporting 3.0 when 3.5 hit. It's not a "moneygrab", it's Business 101- encourage people to buy the product you're still making and not the discontinued one.

And as an individual with an IQ of 140, I would LOVE to play a 4th Edition MMORPG. As long as it's not DDO. DDO is based on 3.5, and should stay that way.

Yeah, but the difference in time from Edition 3.5 to 4th seemed a little short. Compare the difference in time from 2nd to 3rd. When you also add in the fact that WotC was bought by Hasbro and people made assumptions that they were trying to "moneygrab". Although all business need to make money, some of the recent actions of Hasbro make me think they are trying to break ties with a lot of the old stuff (some of which I consider good) and almost redesign D&D to fit their image of it.

For example, I thought one of the best things that WotC did for D&D was develop the Open Gaming License for d20 (OGL, at least I'm pretty sure that is what it stands for). The new gaming license for 4th edition (don't remember what it is called), seems more restrictive, and almost seems to stifle some of the third parties that were developing products for d20.

You bringing up your IQ seems a bit of a non sequitur. I have around 140 IQ as well (138 last time I was tested), and while I would give a MMO based upon 4th edition a try, I don't know that I would be as eager to play it. I guess it would come down to how well done it was overall.

[Xenus_Paradox]

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.

Was responding to this post. Should have multiquoted.

And thinking of "3.5" as an edition is a mistake. 3.5 was a revision to the 3.0 rules. 3rd edition was released in... what, 2002 or so? '01? That's like 7 years between editions. Many RPGs release a new update every 2 or so.

[Montrose]

I've played 4e a few times. It's fun, but in a very different way than previous editions.

I've spent most of my time as a DM, so maybe part of the difference is being a player rather than a DM. However, IMO, 4th edition has been geared very heavily towards combat and templatization.

Combat focus:

There seems to be very little that happens in 4e without involving a die check. In most of the games that I ran, combat was not extremely common. Some of the campaigns that I ran were almost entirely political and had very few combats at all, in fact. The large number of spells, skill abilities, and just general creativity of the players took the place of combat.

Now with 4e almost everything that a player can do relates directly back to how it will help them in a combat situation. Spells are almost all damage-dealing in nature. Rituals take a long time to cast and have a lot less effect.

Templating:

One of my favorite characters to play was an intelligent and dextrous thief. He lived by his wits and agility. The high intelligence helped him have a ton of skills, and the dexterity kept him away from danger.

In 4e this character is completely gimp. Int doesn't help much at all for any of the rogue skills. In fact, unless you are a wizard Int is a dump stat for any character. The entire DDO world is full of wizards and idiots.

The game is havily geared towards making charcters that are all extremely similar, because you all get the same powers to choose from (and some powers are just inherently better than others). Yes, you *can* make a character that breaks from the mold, but the game makes them much more inefective than they would have been in 3rd edition. :(

[Korvek]

You use a power out of combat. What happens? No one knows.

You use your axe to attack the door? Can you break it down? Prior to 4th this was clearly defined. Now? Maybe you can, maybe the door is magically immune to damage because it's not flagged as breakable.

You kill an enemy and take his sword. What does it do? No one knows. What if the sword is used to deliver a poison attack? Is that a factor of the sword, the creature holding the sword, or does it just kind of happen? No one knows.

Oh noes, the DMs might need to think! The horror!

Also, in response to the first comment about powers out of combat, what happens is that text. You know, the Effect.

[Korvek]

In fact, unless you are a wizard Int is a dump stat for any character.

Warlord. Swordmage. Avenger. Invoker.

At the very least, Int is useful to those classes, while admittedly it isn't integral.

[LordElbrun]

And that's pretty damned fast people!

4.0 is indeed an abomination. Thank you Hasbro, for turning WotC into the devil, and D&D into WoW.

Hasbro didn't turn them into the devil, WotC has been the devil since Magic the Gathering Alpha edition. Flat crack and all that. But when they bought TSR I saw how things were going to go, straight into the toilet for D&D. WotC has always been about money, quality comes dead last for them.

[Tallyn]

Hasbro didn't turn them into the devil, WotC has been the devil since Magic the Gathering Alpha edition. Flat crack and all that. But when they bought TSR I saw how things were going to go, straight into the toilet for D&D. WotC has always been about money, quality comes dead last for them.

So you would have rather had TSR completely fail and have to file for bankruptcy, and possibly never had any new products developed for D&D again, rather than have WotC buy them back then? Because that's the direction TSR was going.

[LordElbrun]

So you would have rather had TSR completely fail and have to file for bankruptcy, and possibly never had any new products developed for D&D again, rather than have WotC buy them back then? Because that's the direction TSR was going.

Buying TSR saved D&D, but also put it directly into the situation it is in now. That being the oversimplification and 'MMOizing' of the system, and the trend to produce more and more 'core material' in far to many books. 3e was rushed, which caused 3.5e to be created to fix many of the problems. 4e is quite simply a least common denominator application of the D&D, put D&D on it and it will sell... though you find that many of those who played 2e and 3/3.5e dislike it and abandon it due to its massive oversimplification.

WotC has made a great many mistakes over the years, mostly at the expense of licenses they own. The only license they spend vast amounts of development on is Magic the Gathering. Which has been known as 'flat crack' by many for years. If the same level of development was used on their licensed material, such as D&D and Star Wars, you would find much better product. But it's not about quality at WotC, it's about money. And the fastest way to make money is to make it necessary to buy many many books, or a few thousand cards.

Just look at their handling of the Star Wars RPG. It took them 3 editions to actually make a game worth playing (Saga edition). Their miniatures division has been hit and miss for years for Star Wars, as well as for D&D. And the D&D mini's range actually had a great handle on some things, but it became just another tool for 4e. As many people feel the need to have miniatures to show enemies, to handle encounters, and just for the 'feel' of being able to see the monster at the table.

[Tallyn]

Buying TSR saved D&D, but also put it directly into the situation it is in now. That being the oversimplification and 'MMOizing' of the system, and the trend to produce more and more 'core material' in far to many books. 3e was rushed, which caused 3.5e to be created to fix many of the problems. 4e is quite simply a least common denominator application of the D&D, put D&D on it and it will sell... though you find that many of those who played 2e and 3/3.5e dislike it and abandon it due to its massive oversimplification.

WotC has made a great many mistakes over the years, mostly at the expense of licenses they own. The only license they spend vast amounts of development on is Magic the Gathering. Which has been known as 'flat crack' by many for years. If the same level of development was used on their licensed material, such as D&D and Star Wars, you would find much better product. But it's not about quality at WotC, it's about money. And the fastest way to make money is to make it necessary to buy many many books, or a few thousand cards.

Just look at their handling of the Star Wars RPG. It took them 3 editions to actually make a game worth playing (Saga edition). Their miniatures division has been hit and miss for years for Star Wars, as well as for D&D. And the D&D mini's range actually had a great handle on some things, but it became just another tool for 4e. As many people feel the need to have miniatures to show enemies, to handle encounters, and just for the 'feel' of being able to see the monster at the table.

I guess to each his own. I do not like the Saga edition at all, and much prefer their Revised Edition for Star Wars. I also don't really think 3.0 was rushed, but that's my opinion. There were only a few minor tweaks needed.


And I don't think it was as much about money with WotC as it is with Hasbro.

[RangerOne]

There is only one DnD: all others are but shadows of ADnD, 2nd Edition.

[joker965]

Me and my friends haven't given Chevrolet a dime since about 1965. The dumbest thing they ever did was discontinuing the production of older models when they come out with new ones. If they were still putting out parts for the older models my friends would still be spending the thousands of dollars a year that we always did before. Now it is $0.

This is not a valid argument as an intellectual property is not a car.

[joker965]

Yeah, but the difference in time from Edition 3.5 to 4th seemed a little short. Compare the difference in time from 2nd to 3rd. When you also add in the fact that WotC was bought by Hasbro and people made assumptions that they were trying to "moneygrab". Although all business need to make money, some of the recent actions of Hasbro make me think they are trying to break ties with a lot of the old stuff (some of which I consider good) and almost redesign D&D to fit their image of it.

For example, I thought one of the best things that WotC did for D&D was develop the Open Gaming License for d20 (OGL, at least I'm pretty sure that is what it stands for). The new gaming license for 4th edition (don't remember what it is called), seems more restrictive, and almost seems to stifle some of the third parties that were developing products for d20.

You bringing up your IQ seems a bit of a non sequitur. I have around 140 IQ as well (138 last time I was tested), and while I would give a MMO based upon 4th edition a try, I don't know that I would be as eager to play it. I guess it would come down to how well done it was overall.

I don't disagree with you at all. I really like 3E for computer games and such. The classed and abilities are at least close. Some of our house rules we had in 1997 are even part of 3E. 4E is just funny to me that it is called D&D. In the end I don't really care. We will keep playing our house game and I don't care what Wizards does.

[RictrasShard]

Anyways, Asp is right. 3.5 core offered Barbarians, Bards, Clerics, Druids, Fighters, Monks, Paladins, Rangers, Rogues, Sorcerers, and Wizards. 4th edition core gives you the Clerics, the Fighters, the Paladins, the Rangers, the Rogues, and the Wizards. It also gives you a gimp Ranger in the form of a Warlock, and something that vaguely resembles a Bard in the form of the Warlord.

Just as in any other edition, all you need to play the game are the three base books.


Better be careful with your insulting word choice. I would think an individual with an "IQ over 140" would know how to express himself without calling people "dumb."

Then again, I've been wrong before, usually when I actually trust a person that states their IQ as a argumentative tool.

How about this:

4E sucks and is for little kids. Big boys play previous editions.

If you don't want others insulting you, please don't make insulting remarks yourself.

Regardless, you like 3.5. Nothing wrong with that. I dislike that edition, but I don't begrudge those that prefer it. Your closing statement about fourth is quite misleading, though. Fourth edition is for people who prefer their game to be more freestyle, to be making things up on the fly, and not having the rules slow you down or get in the way.

[Rabbi_Hordo]

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.


U callin' me fat, Ill? ;)

p.s. I think your IQ estimate is a bit high for that one as 4ed requires only a 51-70 IQ range to master...anyone higher quickly finds the nearest sharp objects to poke their own eyes out.

[Rabbi_Hordo]

Fourth edition is for people who prefer their game to be more freestyle, to be making things up on the fly, and not having the rules slow you down or get in the way.

Umm...I've been playing since 1976 and have yet to see ANY edition with rule problems hampering freestyle creativity and play. However, 4ed has simply abandoned any rules that required more than a 3rd grade education and replaced them with the PnP equivalent of point-and-click simplicity enabling the most disadvantaged minds to participate.

[Soulken]

I dont like 4E havent played much pnp but tried 2nd edtion(my dad plays) 3.x and 4E and I like 2nd and 3.x but dont like 4E its to vanilla and wizards dont really seem like wizards.

[Soulken]

Better be careful with your insulting word choice. I would think an individual with an "IQ over 140" would know how to express himself without calling people "dumb."

Then again, I've been wrong before, usually when I actually trust a person that states their IQ as a argumentative tool.

How about this:

4E sucks and is for little kids. Big boys play previous editions.

What about us girls?

[RictrasShard]

However, 4ed has simply abandoned any rules that required more than a 3rd grade education and replaced them with the PnP equivalent of point-and-click simplicity enabling the most disadvantaged minds to participate.

Do you have any valid opinions regarding 4E that don't consist of insulting the people who play it?

[Soulken]

Do you have any valid opinions regarding 4E that don't consist of insulting the people who play it?

I wouldnt insult anyone about playing it but it does seem somewhat simplified compared to 3.x but maybe some people just want to sit down and play game, instead of hammering out what might be the best min-max combo which is what some 3.x players do, my gm doesnt use any splat books for 3.x and so that cuts down on that somewhat although a couple players still do it. 4E doesnt seem to lend it self to that though all characters of a certain class and lvl seem to be nearly indentitcal.

[Xenus_Paradox]

Better be careful with your insulting word choice. I would think an individual with an "IQ over 140" would know how to express himself without calling people "dumb."

Then again, I've been wrong before, usually when I actually trust a person that states their IQ as a argumentative tool.

How about this:

4E sucks and is for little kids. Big boys play previous editions.

Ahem.

Previous editions suck and are for little kids. Big boys play 4E.

See? I can make unsubstantiated blanket statements too.

As to my choice of words, anyone who would claim that you need all the Player's Handbooks to play without, oh, I don't know, DOING A COUPLE MINUTES OF RESEARCH is either unintelligent or disingenuous. I mean, really, if I were to claim that 3.5 is unplayable without all the Complete X books, without actually bothering to Google for confirmation, I'd deserve to be called dumb.

I have played 3.5 and 4th quite a bit. I love both. If you cannot understand that some folks might actually like something that you dislike, then maybe you need to take a deep breath and get off the intertubes for a bit. Go for a walk or something. Fact is, 4th edition is selling better than 3.5 ever did, which means that either a lot of people like it, or a lot of people are masochists.

Finally, if you really want proof of my intellectual capacity, I could email you a copy of my Diagnostic School report. Of course, it's like a dozen pages long, so you may want to set some time aside.

[Xenus_Paradox]

Umm...I've been playing since 1976 and have yet to see ANY edition with rule problems hampering freestyle creativity and play. However, 4ed has simply abandoned any rules that required more than a 3rd grade education and replaced them with the PnP equivalent of point-and-click simplicity enabling the most disadvantaged minds to participate.

Ahahahahaha. No.

Fact is, 3.5 has a jazillion billion different frigging esoteric subsystems that take a slide rule to calculate. I don't want to have to roll to see if I penetrate Spell Resistance, after rolling to see if I overcome ASF, then the monster rolls its save, then I roll damage... then repeat for each other monster in the area of effect. Or how about making your attack roll, then rolling for concealment, then rolling to see if their fortification goes off... Tracking skill points for a character created at 12th level, who has 2 base classes and 3 PrCs, with vastly different skill lists...

Does the bookkeeping mean I don't like 3.5? Heavens no. But I'd far rather play a game where most actions involve no more than 2 rolls of the dice, where I don't have to check my math at character creation, and I don't need to set aside an hour to generate monster stat blocks.

[Xenus_Paradox]

PHB 2 in 3.5 is a splat book.

PHB 2+ in 4.0 are absolutely required to have core classes like barbarians, druids, and bards.

I'm pretty sure none of those classes were core until 3rd edition. By your logic, Complete Arcane is "absolutely required" to play 3rd, because it has base classes that aren't in the PHB.

[Tallyn]

I'm pretty sure none of those classes were core until 3rd edition. By your logic, Complete Arcane is "absolutely required" to play 3rd, because it has base classes that aren't in the PHB.

Not to nitpick, but those classes were core in AD&D 1st edition. Monk too!

[SquelchHU]

In 4e this character is completely gimp. Int doesn't help much at all for any of the rogue skills. In fact, unless you are a wizard Int is a dump stat for any character. The entire DDO world is full of wizards and idiots.

The game is havily geared towards making charcters that are all extremely similar, because you all get the same powers to choose from (and some powers are just inherently better than others). Yes, you *can* make a character that breaks from the mold, but the game makes them much more inefective than they would have been in 3rd edition. :(

Yup. Though I think you're starting to get 4th and DDO mixed up just because I compared them and said that any further similarities would be detrimental in response to someone else.


Oh noes, the DMs might need to think! The horror!

Also, in response to the first comment about powers out of combat, what happens is that text. You know, the Effect.

So in other words, the DM is having to make up for missing data constituting a system flaw? Why did he purchase a rulebook then, if he was just going to make up something anyways? He could do that for free, the whole point of buying rulebooks is to have the ability to fairly adjudicate conflict resolution.

Bugs are not features.


Better be careful with your insulting word choice. I would think an individual with an "IQ over 140" would know how to express himself without calling people "dumb."

Then again, I've been wrong before, usually when I actually trust a person that states their IQ as a argumentative tool.

How about this:

4E sucks and is for little kids. Big boys play previous editions.

Works for me. I'd also be willing to wager the people that he is arguing with have an IQ greater than 140. Not that that is relevant, as it does not require a great deal of intelligence to correctly deduce that 4th edition is a massive downgrade from its predecessors in all categories.


Just as in any other edition, all you need to play the game are the three base books.

At which point you lose a quarter to a half of the classes and most of the options available to you, as everything about the edition right down to the writing style forces everything to be incredibly narrow and uncreative. 4th edition is often compared to World of Warcraft, but I don't think so. WoW has more out of combat options and more tactical options in battle. And it's one of the simpler MMOs out there, not to mention that MMOs as a genre are simple.

How many 'powers' for x class do you get at y point? Probably about the same number as you can select. Alternately it offers one more than you can select, but one of them is so obviously worse than the others everyone takes the same stuff anyways. Oh, so creative!

But it gets worse when you actually play it. Because actual tactics are either solidly blocked by the system or are actually less effective than just stacking your numbers up with as many similar things as possible, and since enemies can't use tactics either you can just blast through anything with a ranged only party kiting, or a melee only party all jumping one enemy at a time until it dies then repeat.


If you don't want others insulting you, please don't make insulting remarks yourself.

Regardless, you like 3.5. Nothing wrong with that. I dislike that edition, but I don't begrudge those that prefer it. Your closing statement about fourth is quite misleading, though. Fourth edition is for people who prefer their game to be more freestyle, to be making things up on the fly, and not having the rules slow you down or get in the way.

This false statement has already been corrected.


What about us girls?

Yeah sure, we're equal opportunity gamers.


Ahem.

Previous editions suck and are for little kids. Big boys play 4E.

See? I can make unsubstantiated blanket statements too.

BZZT! There is a very big difference between making demeaning and yet correct statements, and making demeaning and wrong statements. 4th edition is so simple a basic script can do it as well as a human, and to call such a simple system 'for little kids' is fair game.

Skipping false statements that have already been addressed and irrelevant and likely false claims that have also already been addressed.


I have played 3.5 and 4th quite a bit. I love both. If you cannot understand that some folks might actually like something that you dislike, then maybe you need to take a deep breath and get off the intertubes for a bit. Go for a walk or something. Fact is, 4th edition is selling better than 3.5 ever did, which means that either a lot of people like it, or a lot of people are masochists.

Court records say you're wrong. 4th edition at the best of times sold as well as 3.5 did at the worst of times collectively, despite the former producing a much higher volume of books.

Now, I'm not going to bother insulting 4th edition players. There's no point, especially when I can just stand back, watch, and wait and they will do an admirable job insulting themselves. But for this same reason it's easy to deduce which is the superior system - it's the one people can argue in support of honestly, without having to get rabid about it. And it's the one where they do understand how the other system works, which is why they can correctly deduce it sucks, instead of demonstrating their incompetence with the other system with some talk about spell resistance and fortification and whatever else.

Now if you'd like, I can break down the problems with 3.5. It would take around 5 pages or so, which is a tenth the time it would take to do the same for 4th unless I copped out and gave the correct but lazy answer in the form of 'All of it.' but I can do it. See, my argument isn't that 3.5 is perfect, it's that 4th is a massive downgrade from 3.5. And that means I can be honest and objective in my assessments. Something that I have never seen a 4th player capable of doing. And that I don't think I ever will, because they aren't capable of it. They don't even understand it.

[Ystradmynach]

Anyone find it ironic that DDO is a MMORPG that is emulating a tabletop rpg, while 4th edition is a table rpg that is trying to emulate an MMORPG?

Anyway, the problem I see is that 3.5 (and some earlier versions) was complex for a reason, it was trying to create rules to emulate how your character would interact with the rpg world in a believable and consistent manner. 4E threw most of that out the window to create a simple combat and leveling system with little regard either for why anything worked the way it did or how that impacted things in non-combat situations or even doing non-standard things in combat.

I mean, 4E went into great lengths to separate the classes in martial, arcane and divine categories (and later primal and others), and then did nothing to have those power sources mean anything except maybe how each power is described.

Why can't a player use a magic item of a higher level then he is? Why do players "forget" earlier powers once they reach a certain level? Why is there no attrition or any effect that can't be reset in a day at most? What happens if I want to craft something, make a magic item or research a ritual? These just seem to be a few things thrown out either in the name of simplicity or because the system designers didn't trust either the players or the DM.

I really wanted to like 4E, and in fact the simplicity in some ways is nice for the DM and new players, but it still feels like half-a-system to me. There just seemed little regard for even a pretense at creating a simulated world, but rather just a simplified combat system. That would have been fine for a MMORPG, but I did expect more from a tabletop rpg, especially from D&D.

[RictrasShard]

Not to nitpick, but those classes were core in AD&D 1st edition. Monk too!

Barbarian wasn't.


So in other words, the DM is having to make up for missing data constituting a system flaw? Why did he purchase a rulebook then, if he was just going to make up something anyways? He could do that for free, the whole point of buying rulebooks is to have the ability to fairly adjudicate conflict resolution.

You could look at it that way. However, the more appropriate way of looking at it is the DM gets to use his/her creativity, and doesn't need the rules holding his/her hand through every possible contingency.


At which point you lose a quarter to a half of the classes and most of the options available to you,

If this is true about 4E, which so far only has perhaps 10 additional classes so far in splat books, then this viewpoint leads to a very dim view of 3.5, in which the vast majority of classes are in the splat books.


as everything about the edition right down to the writing style forces everything to be incredibly narrow and uncreative. 4th edition is often compared to World of Warcraft, but I don't think so. WoW has more out of combat options and more tactical options in battle. And it's one of the simpler MMOs out there, not to mention that MMOs as a genre are simple.

I, and my fellow players, find it much easier to be far more creative in 4E. As for WOW, no, wrong. In WOW, as in any other MMO, you are limited to doing what the game's programming allows. In WOW, I cannot throw pepper in a foe's eyes, or throw marbles under its feet. I can't trick or manuever it into situations where it must surrender or die. I cannot negotiate with it to try to avoid a fight. As for out of combat options, please tell me what I could do in WOW that I can't do in 4E.

Also, in 4E, I can use any tactics I could in 3.5, as well as the new combat abilities each character gets.


How many 'powers' for x class do you get at y point? Probably about the same number as you can select. Alternately it offers one more than you can select, but one of them is so obviously worse than the others everyone takes the same stuff anyways. Oh, so creative!

With the exception of At Wills, there are several options you can take for each ability choice, just with the base book.


But it gets worse when you actually play it. Because actual tactics are either solidly blocked by the system or are actually less effective than just stacking your numbers up with as many similar things as possible, and since enemies can't use tactics either you can just blast through anything with a ranged only party kiting, or a melee only party all jumping one enemy at a time until it dies then repeat.

Most, if not all, the combat options available to you in 3.5 are also available to you in 4E, for either player characters or enemies.



This false statement has already been corrected.

This false correction has already been corrected.


Now, I'm not going to bother insulting 4th edition players. There's no point, especially when I can just stand back, watch, and wait and they will do an admirable job insulting themselves. But for this same reason it's easy to deduce which is the superior system - it's the one people can argue in support of honestly, without having to get rabid about it. And it's the one where they do understand how the other system works, which is why they can correctly deduce it sucks, instead of demonstrating their incompetence with the other system with some talk about spell resistance and fortification and whatever else.


Actually, I've noticed something interesting. In the majority of these arguments I've seen across the internet, 4E players, at least initially, try to debate politely while explaining why they prefer their edition. 3.5 players immediately start with insults and condescending remarks (my apologies to the 3.5 supporters who aren't like this).

Based on this, I am glad that such players are sticking to an edition I don't play. However, I will continue to debate with them, to make sure people wondering which edition to pick get both sides of the equation.

[moorewr]

I am said fat man and can attest...that would be pretty quick :D

This made me, in fact, actually laugh out loud. Thanks. :)

[SquelchHU]

You could look at it that way. However, the more appropriate way of looking at it is the DM gets to use his/her creativity, and doesn't need the rules holding his/her hand through every possible contingency.

Nope, the rules and world get in the way of that. If he truly wanted to 'use his creativity' without 'rules getting in his way' he would not be playing D&D 4th edition. He would not be playing 3.5, he would not be playing 3rd, and he wouldn't even be playing 1st or 2nd. He would be playing freeform, or at least not a rules heavy system like D&D.


If this is true about 4E, which so far only has perhaps 10 additional classes so far in splat books, then this viewpoint leads to a very dim view of 3.5, in which the vast majority of classes are in the splat books.

Try not quoting out of context.

Here it is spelled out for you and your 140 IQ:

1st edition offers a small number of core classes. Fighter, Thief, Magic User, Cleric. If you also count Druids and Illusionists and Bards as separate classes this number increases.

2nd edition might have added another class or two. Or it might not have. I don't remember. Regardless, the total was less than 11.

3rd edition rolls around, Cleric = Cleric, Fighter = Fighter, Thief = Rogue, and Magic User = Wizard. They also brought in some of the other classes, and a new one or two. This is overall an improvement to available options.

4th takes about half the core classes out of core, kind of replaces one, adds in another that adds nothing new, and takes the 5 core classes they removed and scatters them throughout different other books. This is a downgrade of available options, and it is also a moneygrab because now people who were playing core classes need other books to do it. If the classes were in a splatbook to begin with, then putting them in a splatbook again would not be a bad thing.

And don't even get me started about how most of the 3.5 classes actually do something different. No, holding a different weapon, using a different almost entirely interchangeable stat, and having slightly different fluff text for your 1d8+4 vs 150 HP enemies attacks is not a different class.


I, and my fellow players, find it much easier to be far more creative in 4E. As for WOW, no, wrong. In WOW, as in any other MMO, you are limited to doing what the game's programming allows. In WOW, I cannot throw pepper in a foe's eyes, or throw marbles under its feet. I can't trick or manuever it into situations where it must surrender or die. I cannot negotiate with it to try to avoid a fight. As for out of combat options, please tell me what I could do in WOW that I can't do in 4E.

Also, in 4E, I can use any tactics I could in 3.5, as well as the new combat abilities each character gets.

Kindly demonstrate how you can actually influence the outcome of battle despite your inability to seriously harm the enemy at all. I will save you the time and tell you that you cannot.

More repeats skipped.


Actually, I've noticed something interesting. In the majority of these arguments I've seen across the internet, 4E players, at least initially, try to debate politely while explaining why they prefer their edition. 3.5 players immediately start with insults and condescending remarks (my apologies to the 3.5 supporters who aren't like this).

Exactly what arguments are you looking at?

Because they usually go something like this:

3rd edition guy: The problems with 4th edition are x, y, and z. *the actual list is much longer than this*

4th edition guy: It's not a bug, it's a feature!

And the 3rd edition guy might keep trying being nice or reasonable or what have you, but it's too late because he's said something negative about 4th edition and will therefore be bombarded with personal attacks, false statements, and a swarm of other people who do the same. Sometimes the 3rd edition guy gets aggressive right back, sometimes he keeps trying the kinder and gentler approach, sometimes he just writes them off as a lost cause.

But there's always a common thread. The 4th edition guy won't acknowledge any flaw with his system, no matter how real, severe, or supported by evidence it is. It's not too hard to foresee why - to acknowledge one flaw is to acknowledge the many, at which point it's time to jump ship. Certainly explains the terrible sales, as many have done exactly this.

They also will not take offers like 'breaking down the flaws of 3.5' because they know that that person is entirely capable of doing so, and it will only further undermine the quicksand they stand upon when said person turns around and says 'Your move'.

Despite the fact these are clearly different people from different geographical locations, it is like arguing with the same person over and over. Almost as if they were repeating stock phrases instead of presenting their own arguments. It's rather sad that such has effectively killed tabletop D&D, at least until 4.5 or 5th edition comes out and WotC informs us that it was all just a very long April Fool's joke.

[Xenus_Paradox]

"So in other words, the DM is having to make up for missing data constituting a system flaw? Why did he purchase a rulebook then, if he was just going to make up something anyways? He could do that for free, the whole point of buying rulebooks is to have the ability to fairly adjudicate conflict resolution."

3.5 doesn't cover every possible situation either. Neither did 3.0, AD&D 2, AD&D 1, OD&D, or any game ever printed for that matter.


"Works for me. I'd also be willing to wager the people that he is arguing with have an IQ greater than 140. Not that that is relevant, as it does not require a great deal of intelligence to correctly deduce that 4th edition is a massive downgrade from its predecessors in all categories."

I brougt up my IQ to address the asinine statement that anyone with an IQ above 80 would not play a 4E-based MMO. Also, please quantify exactly how 4E is a "downgrade". I bet you can't come up with a single example that isn't completely subjective.


"At which point you lose a quarter to a half of the classes and most of the options available to you, as everything about the edition right down to the writing style forces everything to be incredibly narrow and uncreative. 4th edition is often compared to World of Warcraft, but I don't think so. WoW has more out of combat options and more tactical options in battle. And it's one of the simpler MMOs out there, not to mention that MMOs as a genre are simple."

Bull. 3.5 has, IIRC, something like 80 classes, of which maybe a dozen are in the PH. Guess 3.5 is "Narrow" and "uncreative" too, unless you buy ALL the books.

How many 'powers' for x class do you get at y point? Probably about the same number as you can select. Alternately it offers one more than you can select, but one of them is so obviously worse than the others everyone takes the same stuff anyways. Oh, so creative!

Ooooh, a gripe with an actual number. Prepare to be pwnd.

Warlocks get to choose from 14 daily powers and 13 encounter powers at level 1. You get to pick any single one of each.

Wizards get to choose from 10 daily and encounter powers at level 1. You get to pick 1 of each, plus an extra daily in your spellbook to be swapped out after a rest.

Fighters have 9 dailies and 10 encounters. Pick one of each.

I can go all day. Want to see levels 1-30 of every class? Fact is, you can get maybe 10% of a class's powers.



"But it gets worse when you actually play it. Because actual tactics are either solidly blocked by the system or are actually less effective than just stacking your numbers up with as many similar things as possible, and since enemies can't use tactics either you can just blast through anything with a ranged only party kiting, or a melee only party all jumping one enemy at a time until it dies then repeat."

Provide examples, please. I get the feeling your DM for the, I'm thinking half a game of 4E you played just sucked. "Enemies can't use tactics?" Really? I guess I missed that page in the rules. Actual tactics are blocked? Please elaborate, because I played a one-shot recently where the players blew my mind with creative tactics... AND THE ENCOUNTER DIDN'T DISALLOW THEM! Wow, guess I'm doing it wrong!

And guess what? Meleeing one enemy at a time doesn't work if your DM has half a brain. All he has to do, see, is MOVE THE OTHER MONSTERS and use flanking. Plus? The tactics you described are exactly what everyone does in DDO.

Stacking up numbers as high as they can go? Clearly you're confusing 4th with 3.5, as 4th has cut down on bonus proliferation.

3.5 allows you to get enhancement bonuses, insight bonuses, circumstance bonuses, competence bonuses, sacred bonuses, perfection bonuses, profane bonuses, untyped bonuses, and about a million others, allowing you to boost pretty much anything to a point where you only ever fail on a 1. SO MUCH FUN!

4th has maybe 5 types of bonus.

"BZZT! There is a very big difference between making demeaning and yet correct statements, and making demeaning and wrong statements. 4th edition is so simple a basic script can do it as well as a human, and to call such a simple system 'for little kids' is fair game."

Prove it. Write a script, and win 4th edition forever.

"Now, I'm not going to bother insulting 4th edition players."

Except for all the times you already have.

"But for this same reason it's easy to deduce which is the superior system - it's the one people can argue in support of honestly, without having to get rabid about it."

So, you admit that 4e is superior! I knew you'd come around.

"And it's the one where they do understand how the other system works, which is why they can correctly deduce it sucks, instead of demonstrating their incompetence with the other system with some talk about spell resistance and fortification and whatever else."

I understand 3.5 well enough. Hell, I gave my DM migraines by powergaming. I just don't like having to do all the extra work.

"Now if you'd like, I can break down the problems with 3.5. It would take around 5 pages or so, which is a tenth the time it would take to do the same for 4th unless I copped out and gave the correct but lazy answer in the form of 'All of it.' but I can do it. See, my argument isn't that 3.5 is perfect, it's that 4th is a massive downgrade from 3.5. And that means I can be honest and objective in my assessments. Something that I have never seen a 4th player capable of doing. And that I don't think I ever will, because they aren't capable of it. They don't even understand it."

blah blah blah I'm better than you blah blah blah. blah blah 4th sucks, 3.5 rules blah blah. You claim 4th sucks but you haven't provided one single quantifiable shred of evidence.

What precisely do you think is wrong with 4th? I bet I can singlehandedly prove you wrong.

[Xenus_Paradox]

Exactly what arguments are you looking at?

Because they usually go something like this:

3rd edition guy: The problems with 4th edition are x, y, and z. *the actual list is much longer than this*


Actually, it goes like this:

4E player: "4E is kinda cool."
3.5 player: "4th is an abomination and an affront to God and man. You should be burned at the stake for suggesting otherwise."
And it goes from there.

[Xenus_Paradox]

You can't convert 3rd to 4th at all. Not just because they never bothered releasing a conversion table, but because most of it cannot be converted at all. There's no parallel in the 4th edition world for any such thing as an illusionist or necromancer, there's no parallel for characters who can actually influence the world in any way, nothing. Take any 3.5 party, and at least 75% of it is totally unconvertable. Not even the basics translate well, as suddenly they lose around half their damage output or more (likely much more) and also have to deal with enemies with much higher HP totals.

I call your bluff, sir! Post stat blocks for your party, and I guarantee I can make a serviceable 4E equivalent for every single character.

[SquelchHU]

And there we go. Full on rabies outbreak. Complete with lots of falsehoods and triple posting, to boot. I rest my case.

Friends, don't let friends downgrade to 4th edition.

If this keeps up I may have to do some Google fu to learn what the derogatory names are for it.

[Xenus_Paradox]

And there we go. Full on rabies outbreak. Complete with lots of falsehoods and triple posting, to boot. I rest my case.

Friends, don't let friends downgrade to 4th edition.

If this keeps up I may have to do some Google fu to learn what the derogatory names are for it.

Oooh, baseless allegations. Where, precisely, did I post any "falsehood?" Break it down or just admit that I tore your weak arguments to shreds.

As to "rabies"... where, exactly, in these posts, did I get "rabid?" Hmmm? Is it where I pointed out the flaws in your so-called logic? Or where I challenged you to back up your statements?

As to triple posting... I'm simply too lazy to multiquote and edit when responding to multiple posts.

Finally... go ahead and call me every name in the book. I look forward to your inevitable permaban.

*waits for Squelch to completely ignore everything I said and reiterate the same tired talking points of "4E sucks! 3.5 rules!" and "4E players are dumb."*

[RictrasShard]

Nope, the rules and world get in the way of that. If he truly wanted to 'use his creativity' without 'rules getting in his way' he would not be playing D&D 4th edition. He would not be playing 3.5, he would not be playing 3rd, and he wouldn't even be playing 1st or 2nd. He would be playing freeform, or at least not a rules heavy system like D&D.

In my experience, completely freeform games tend to break down into arguments of who did what, who is better at such and such, and so forth. The trick is to have enough rules to give the game structure, but not so many that it hinders the game. 4E does a good job at this.


Try not quoting out of context.

That will be easy, because I didn't.


Here it is spelled out for you and your 140 IQ:

I don't have an IQ of 140, nor have I ever stated I did.


1st edition offers a small number of core classes. Fighter, Thief, Magic User, Cleric. If you also count Druids and Illusionists and Bards as separate classes this number increases.

It also offered assassins, paladins, rangers and monks, if that is of interest to you.


2nd edition might have added another class or two. Or it might not have. I don't remember. Regardless, the total was less than 11.

Fighter, paladin, ranger, mage, cleric, thief and bard (with illusionist and druid subclasses).


3rd edition rolls around, Cleric = Cleric, Fighter = Fighter, Thief = Rogue, and Magic User = Wizard. They also brought in some of the other classes, and a new one or two. This is overall an improvement to available options.

Barbarian, bard, cleric, druid, fighter, monk, paladin, ranger, rogue, sorcerer and wizard. The same number as first edition. It doesn't have illusionists and assassins, but by this point, most people consider these as add-ons to existing classes, not classes on their own. It adds barbarians and sorcerers.


4th takes about half the core classes out of core, kind of replaces one, adds in another that adds nothing new, and takes the 5 core classes they removed and scatters them throughout different other books. This is a downgrade of available options, and it is also a moneygrab because now people who were playing core classes need other books to do it. If the classes were in a splatbook to begin with, then putting them in a splatbook again would not be a bad thing.

If by core classes you mean the ones from first edition, the only ones not there are illusionist and assassins, which are no longer considered separate classes, monk, which has been coming and going with each new edition, and druid. It also doesn't have bard, but that is a class that very few first edition players were able to earn, so it is not really a loss.

The actual core classes are fighter, wizard, cleric and thief. Every edition has these, although the class names have changed at times.


And don't even get me started about how most of the 3.5 classes actually do something different. No, holding a different weapon, using a different almost entirely interchangeable stat, and having slightly different fluff text for your 1d8+4 vs 150 HP enemies attacks is not a different class.

As someone who is actually playing 4E, I know that the classes play quite differently from each other.


Kindly demonstrate how you can actually influence the outcome of battle despite your inability to seriously harm the enemy at all. I will save you the time and tell you that you cannot.

I don't know where this criteria suddenly came from, and what enemies cannot be harmed in 4E that could be harmed in 3.5, but alright. As I already stated, I can throw pepper (or sand, or whatever is at hand) into the foe's eyes, blinding it. I can throw marbles under its feet, effecting its mobility. I can use a rope to restrain it. I can throw oil on it and then use flint and steel to ignite it. As for the character abilities themselves, there are numerous abilities that can move the enemy (say, over the side of a cliff), immobilize it, cause it to flee, or otherwise hinder it in some fashion.


Exactly what arguments are you looking at?

Because they usually go something like this:

3rd edition guy: The problems with 4th edition are x, y, and z. *the actual list is much longer than this*

4th edition guy: It's not a bug, it's a feature!

Look back through this thread. It is a prime example that what I stated is correct.


And the 3rd edition guy might keep trying being nice or reasonable or what have you, but it's too late because he's said something negative about 4th edition and will therefore be bombarded with personal attacks, false statements, and a swarm of other people who do the same. Sometimes the 3rd edition guy gets aggressive right back, sometimes he keeps trying the kinder and gentler approach, sometimes he just writes them off as a lost cause.

Look back through this thread. You will see it was the 3.5 supporters who initiated personal attacks and false statements.

[SquelchHU]

In my experience, completely freeform games tend to break down into arguments of who did what, who is better at such and such, and so forth. The trick is to have enough rules to give the game structure, but not so many that it hinders the game. 4E does a good job at this.

Correct, which is why you used published rulesets. But you don't get it both ways, and 4th manages to be the most restrictive edition despite copping out and outright refusing to publish rules for basic things. Mostly because it's easier to devote 300 words to doing 1d8+4 damage in a slightly different but functionally identical way.

If you have to make up the rule for it, you encounter all the negative aspects of freeform, and all the negative aspects of published rules (such as having to spend money on purchasing them).


I don't have an IQ of 140, nor have I ever stated I did.




It also offered assassins, paladins, rangers and monks, if that is of interest to you.



Fighter, paladin, ranger, mage, cleric, thief and bard (with illusionist and druid subclasses).

Some of those can be functionally ignored due to the extremely high stats required to enter. In any case, 8 > 9 > 11 represents an improvement over time. Going back from 11 to 8 does the opposite.


I don't know where this criteria suddenly came from, and what enemies cannot be harmed in 4E that could be harmed in 3.5, but alright. As I already stated, I can throw pepper (or sand, or whatever is at hand) into the foe's eyes, blinding it. I can throw marbles under its feet, effecting its mobility. I can use a rope to restrain it. I can throw oil on it and then use flint and steel to ignite it. As for the character abilities themselves, there are numerous abilities that can move the enemy (say, over the side of a cliff), immobilize it, cause it to flee, or otherwise hinder it in some fashion.

It was a jab at all classes, even the so called DPS classes dealing very low damage outputs, leading to very long combats accordingly. None of those things you mentioned actually involve playing 4th edition in any way, whereas there are rules legal methods of blinding or tripping or burning enemies in 3.5, etc. Well, except maybe the cliff thing, except since everything has far more HP this is less effective than it would have been before by far.

As for Aspenor attacking the edition, he's right. On every count. That doesn't justify anything else though, because 3.5 players are not some collective hive mind, which is why if you talk to several different 3.5 players you'll get several different sets of talking points. Do the same to 4th edition players, you get the same small pool of things repeated, such that it is very easy to confuse one speaker with another.

Though I am curious to know which of the 3.5 supporters was making false statements, so I can correct them myself.

[Xenus_Paradox]

Correct, which is why you used published rulesets. But you don't get it both ways, and 4th manages to be the most restrictive edition despite copping out and outright refusing to publish rules for basic things. Mostly because it's easier to devote 300 words to doing 1d8+4 damage in a slightly different but functionally identical way.

If you have to make up the rule for it, you encounter all the negative aspects of freeform, and all the negative aspects of published rules (such as having to spend money on purchasing them).



Maybe I confused you with Xenus then. I don't feel like checking, but it probably was him, and in any case I'm no longer paying anything he says any mind as he has admitted to trolling.



Some of those can be functionally ignored due to the extremely high stats required to enter. In any case, 8 > 9 > 11 represents an improvement over time. Going back from 11 to 8 does the opposite.



It was a jab at all classes, even the so called DPS classes dealing very low damage outputs, leading to very long combats accordingly. None of those things you mentioned actually involve playing 4th edition in any way, whereas there are rules legal methods of blinding or tripping or burning enemies in 3.5, etc. Well, except maybe the cliff thing, except since everything has far more HP this is less effective than it would have been before by far.

As for Aspenor attacking the edition, he's right. On every count. That doesn't justify anything else though, because 3.5 players are not some collective hive mind, which is why if you talk to several different 3.5 players you'll get several different sets of talking points. Do the same to 4th edition players, you get the same small pool of things repeated, such that it is very easy to confuse one speaker with another.

Though I am curious to know which of the 3.5 supporters was making false statements, so I can correct them myself.

You can start with the blatant lie that I admitted to trolling and go from there.

[RictrasShard]

Correct, which is why you used published rulesets. But you don't get it both ways, and 4th manages to be the most restrictive edition despite copping out and outright refusing to publish rules for basic things. Mostly because it's easier to devote 300 words to doing 1d8+4 damage in a slightly different but functionally identical way.

In my experience, 4E is much less restrictive than 3.5. Also, for what basic things does it not have rules?


Some of those can be functionally ignored due to the extremely high stats required to enter. In any case, 8 > 9 > 11 represents an improvement over time. Going back from 11 to 8 does the opposite.

The number of classes does not improve things, or make them worse. It is just a difference.


It was a jab at all classes, even the so called DPS classes dealing very low damage outputs, leading to very long combats accordingly. None of those things you mentioned actually involve playing 4th edition in any way, whereas there are rules legal methods of blinding or tripping or burning enemies in 3.5, etc. Well, except maybe the cliff thing, except since everything has far more HP this is less effective than it would have been before by far.

Those things I mentioned do indeed involve playing 4E, being as those are things I did while playing 4E. The DM resolved them using page 42 of the DMG.


As for Aspenor attacking the edition, he's right. On every count.

Nope.


Though I am curious to know which of the 3.5 supporters was making false statements, so I can correct them myself.

Off the top of my head; Aspenor, Uska and you.

[SquelchHU]

In my experience, 4E is much less restrictive than 3.5. Also, for what basic things does it not have rules?

Anything answered with the cop out of page 42. Which is most of it. But after ruling out the blanket cases...

Necromancy.
Illusion.
Transmutation.
Out of combat magic that is worth using. Note that qualifier, before you try to say a six letter word starting with rit and ending with ual.
Doing anything out of combat that doesn't involve throwing 10 dice at it instead of 1, when the conclusion is foregone anyways and varies between success and failure, depending on which one of the many retakes of the 'skill challenge' system you're using. Because they couldn't get the entire non combat section right the first time. Or even the second or third.

I'm sure I'm forgetting quite a few things that are simply taken for granted in 3.5. But suffice it to say, you aren't left with much but run up and hit it, or stand back and shoot it. Not both on the same character, or even in the same party mind you. The game may try to obfuscate this from you, by making you shoot lasers that are somehow less dangerous than mundane projectiles would be in a game without HP inflation, or by making the T-Rex move 10 feet with the power of your breasts.

You know what other edition tried to obfuscate that it was incredibly simple? The first one. Though at least then it was easier to deduce that run up and hit it was your only real option.


Off the top of my head; Aspenor, Uska and you.

Of those, about the only one that might have really gone on the attack is Uska. And I say that only because I don't remember what he actually said, not because I think he did. In any case he can defend himself, as can Aspenor.

[RictrasShard]

Anything answered with the cop out of page 42.

How can a rule which enables DMs to handle just about anything and encourages players to come up with all kinds of crazy stunts be a cop out?


Which is most of it. But after ruling out the blanket cases...

Necromancy.
Illusion.
Transmutation.

All these spell types are still there, they just don't have the category names anymore.


Out of combat magic that is worth using. Note that qualifier, before you try to say a six letter word starting with rit and ending with ual.

If that qualifier is intended to keep ritual spells out of the debate, it also excludes non-combat spells from 3.5.


Doing anything out of combat that doesn't involve throwing 10 dice at it instead of 1, when the conclusion is foregone anyways and varies between success and failure, depending on which one of the many retakes of the 'skill challenge' system you're using. Because they couldn't get the entire non combat section right the first time. Or even the second or third.

The skill challenge is a decent way of doing it, especially for inexperienced players. Those of us who are used to D&D tend to just resolve non-combat scenarios with roleplaying.


I'm sure I'm forgetting quite a few things that are simply taken for granted in 3.5. But suffice it to say, you aren't left with much but run up and hit it, or stand back and shoot it.

I've already shown this isn't true.

[Soulken]

In my experience, 4E is much less restrictive than 3.5. Also, for what basic things does it not have rules?



The number of classes does not improve things, or make them worse. It is just a difference.



Those things I mentioned do indeed involve playing 4E, being as those are things I did while playing 4E. The DM resolved them using page 42 of the DMG.



Nope.



Off the top of my head; Aspenor, Uska and you.


How were those three wrong? and they are right 4E bites and I am a new comer to rpgs and I can see that.

[Soulken]

Not to nitpick, but those classes were core in AD&D 1st edition. Monk too!

barbs werent

[RictrasShard]

How were those three wrong? and they are right 4E bites and I am a new comer to rpgs and I can see that.

Then you're seeing it wrong.

[Xenus_Paradox]

Fact: the purpose of a game is to provide entertainment.
Fact: many people enjoy playing 4th edition.

Please explain how anything else is relevant. OK, maybe YOU don't like it. That doesn't give you the right to tell everyone else they can't enjoy it.

[Soulken]

Then you're seeing it wrong.


Fact: the purpose of a game is to provide entertainment.
Fact: many people enjoy playing 4th edition.

Please explain how anything else is relevant. OK, maybe YOU don't like it. That doesn't give you the right to tell everyone else they can't enjoy it.

I didnt say either of you were wrong for liking 4E but for me and the people I play with 4E isnt fun and all characters feel the same, I will say I am the youngest person playing with my group by half(I dont get to play much) but I enjoy 3.x and even more I like 1st and 2nd edtion, we are going to try the hackmaster soon and that looks pretty cool to me.

[RictrasShard]

I didnt say either of you were wrong for liking 4E but for me and the people I play with 4E isnt fun

See, now this is a statement I can accept. I don't mind people stating they don't enjoy 4E, as no game can please everyone. It is when people state things like 4E is only enjoyable for young children, or people of low intelligence, or that there is nothing remotely good about it, that I feel I must protest.

[Soulken]

See, now this is a statement I can accept. I don't mind people stating they don't enjoy 4E, as no game can please everyone. It is when people state things like 4E is only enjoyable for young children, or people of low intelligence, or that there is nothing remotely good about it, that I feel I must protest.

Yes that is going to far for either side to say things like that

[Junts]

This thread moves me to ask a single question:

Is there something in the water in Oklahoma that takes away Uska's ability to use punctuation and/or realize he's repeating himself for the 7th time?

[Tallyn]

I call your bluff, sir! Post stat blocks for your party, and I guarantee I can make a serviceable 4E equivalent for every single character.

Can you make a Mystic Theurge? How about an Eldritch Warrior. I think one of the biggest failings of 4th edition is multi classing. 3.5 had a robust system for being almost able to build exactly the type of character you would want... in my cursory examinations of 4th Ed. it looked like if I wanted to 'multiclass' I could just take a feat from another class at specific points.

I dont like the new magic system. Daily powers, encounter powers, at will powers, etc. 3.5 people who used magic wield great power, but must be careful to not overextend themselves leaving them vulnerable later. That is part of the strategy. Also it seems that a lot of the non combat related spells that I like are missing (maybe they added them in later, I haven't looked at 4E lately).


I have looked at it, but I have no real desire to play 4th edition. I am actually playing the Pathfinder system by Paizo, which fixes a couple problems with 3.5, and I am really really enjoying it. In my opinion, it is a superior system for the things that I want in a RPG.

[Soulken]

This thread moves me to ask a single question:

Is there something in the water in Oklahoma that takes away Uska's ability to use punctuation and/or realize he's repeating himself for the 7th time?

Me I am wondering why you feel the need to attack some people ? Or what gave you the idea that your even mildly funny ever? I seen you attack several people in threads and you should quit it.

[SquelchHU]

I'm ignoring things that are just outright wrong or that have already been addressed, which leaves me little to respond to.


How can a rule which enables DMs to handle just about anything and encourages players to come up with all kinds of crazy stunts be a cop out?

Because it doesn't do anything except let the writers of rulebooks get out of writing actual rules. Fun fact - writers are paid by the word. Sure explains why they take so long to get to the point doesn't it? In case that not so subtle hint didn't do it for you: 4th edition books have the lowest content to page ratio of any D&D books out there, and are at least competitive with things like White Wolf that wastes a lot of book real estate on low quality poetry.

This is a bug, not a feature.


All these spell types are still there, they just don't have the category names anymore.

Nope.


If that qualifier is intended to keep ritual spells out of the debate, it also excludes non-combat spells from 3.5.

BZZT! Non combat spells in 3.5 are actually useful and worth casting in appropriate situations. If you encounter a locked door in 3.5 Knock isn't your first answer but it isn't your last one either. In 4th it's not an answer at all, you're always better off doing something, anything else. You can take the page with Knock on it out and use it to start your grill and lose nothing.


The skill challenge is a decent way of doing it, especially for inexperienced players. Those of us who are used to D&D tend to just resolve non-combat scenarios with roleplaying.

Nice dodge. You completely failed to address the entire non combat system was broken on release to the point of being unusable, and this is still true after it was rewritten several times over, with the only change being the nature of its total nonfunctionality. You also completely failed to address that even if it did work, you're still having to roll 10 dice instead of 1 to do the same thing, so you still spend more time throwing dice at the problem until it goes away, or just ignoring the rules to deal with it.


I've already shown this isn't true.

Non options are not options. Things that require you to ignore the game to exist are not points in favor of the game. Try again.

[RictrasShard]

I'm ignoring things that are just outright wrong or that have already been addressed, which leaves me little to respond to.

In other words, you are ignoring the things for which you can't find an argument.


Because it doesn't do anything except let the writers of rulebooks get out of writing actual rules. Fun fact - writers are paid by the word. Sure explains why they take so long to get to the point doesn't it? In case that not so subtle hint didn't do it for you: 4th edition books have the lowest content to page ratio of any D&D books out there, and are at least competitive with things like White Wolf that wastes a lot of book real estate on low quality poetry.

Your argument here contradicts itself. If the writers are getting paid by the word, why did they make the catch all rule on page 42 instead of coming up with numerous lengthy rulings, which they certainly could have done?

Regardless, first, they came up with this rule because it covers most game situations quite nicely, it encourages spontaneous creativity, and it helps guide inexperienced DMs through the process of refereeing a game, helping him or her become a skilled dungeon master.

Second, some writers get paid by the word. Most don't.

Finally, the presentation of the 4E books is such because these days, the average consumer does not like big blocks of text.


Nope.

As much as you try to deny it, all one has to do is look through the Player's Handbook to see these types of spells are still there.


BZZT! Non combat spells in 3.5 are actually useful and worth casting in appropriate situations. If you encounter a locked door in 3.5 Knock isn't your first answer but it isn't your last one either. In 4th it's not an answer at all, you're always better off doing something, anything else. You can take the page with Knock on it out and use it to start your grill and lose nothing.

For the most part, the ritual spells in 4E are the same as non-combat spells in 3.5. If they are useless in one edition, then they are also useless in the other edition.

Here is the description of the 4E Knock spell, as written in the book:


The knock ritual allows you to open a single locked door, chest, gate, or other object. It even works against portals sealed with the Arcane Lock ritual or doors secured with bolts or bars that are on the far side, out of reach. You must defeat all the closures on a locked object to unlock it. You make one Arcana check per lock, bar, Arcane lock, or similar closure. The object you unlock does not open automatically; you still must open it yourself after the ritual unlocks it.

Make an Arcana check with a +5 bonus in place of a Thievery check to open each lock or closure. (See the Thievery skill description, page 189, for example DCs.) To undo bolts or bars you normally couldn't reach, you must suceed on a DC 20 Arcana check.

If you use this ritual successfully against a portal protected by Arcane Lock, you destroy the Arcane Lock and its effects end.

There you have it. It tells you exactly how the spell works, what page you need to go to for further details, and so forth. Please explain how this is useless.


Nice dodge. You completely failed to address the entire non combat system was broken on release to the point of being unusable, and this is still true after it was rewritten several times over, with the only change being the nature of its total nonfunctionality. You also completely failed to address that even if it did work, you're still having to roll 10 dice instead of 1 to do the same thing, so you still spend more time throwing dice at the problem until it goes away, or just ignoring the rules to deal with it.

For something that is unusable, a lot of players sure seem able to use it. In the examples of its use that are in pod casts, web pages and so forth, it helps considerably with the roleplaying. After each die roll, success of failure, the DM and players play out the results, getting either closer to the goal or coming against obstacles to what they are trying to do.


Non options are not options. Things that require you to ignore the game to exist are not points in favor of the game. Try again.

What I presented though, are indeed options, covered directly under the rules of the game, as I explained.

[Xenus_Paradox]

In other words, you are ignoring the things for which you can't find an argument.



Your argument here contradicts itself. If the writers are getting paid by the word, why did they make the catch all rule on page 42 instead of coming up with numerous lengthy rulings, which they certainly could have done?

Regardless, first, they came up with this rule because it covers most game situations quite nicely, it encourages spontaneous creativity, and it helps guide inexperienced DMs through the process of refereeing a game, helping him or her become a skilled dungeon master.

Second, some writers get paid by the word. Most don't.

Finally, the presentation of the 4E books is such because these days, the average consumer does not like big blocks of text.



As much as you try to deny it, all one has to do is look through the Player's Handbook to see these types of spells are still there.



For the most part, the ritual spells in 4E are the same as non-combat spells in 3.5. If they are useless in one edition, then they are also useless in the other edition.

Here is the description of the 4E Knock spell, as written in the book:



There you have it. It tells you exactly how the spell works, what page you need to go to for further details, and so forth. Please explain how this is useless.



For something that is unusable, a lot of players sure seem able to use it. In the examples of its use that are in pod casts, web pages and so forth, it helps considerably with the roleplaying. After each die roll, success of failure, the DM and players play out the results, getting either closer to the goal or coming against obstacles to what they are trying to do.



What I presented though, are indeed options, covered directly under the rules of the game, as I explained.

Forget it. Squelch's entire strategy consists of making false statements, then ignoring counterarguments. Essentially, he's spouting blatant lies and then plugging his ears and going "LALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALA!"

Let him stew in his own ignorance and move on.

[Xenus_Paradox]

Can you make a Mystic Theurge? How about an Eldritch Warrior.

Mystic Theurge: Hybrid* cleric/wizard or cleric/sorcerer. Done.
Eldritch Knight: Hybrid fighter/wizard or fighter/sorcerer. Done.

*Hybrid characters are detailed in Dragon magazine and will be in the upcoming Player's Handbook 3 as well.

I was hoping for more of a challenge, to be honest. Like a specific character build.

[SquelchHU]

In other words, you are ignoring the things for which you can't find an argument.

It's called not wasting my time on things that are already resolved.


Your argument here contradicts itself. If the writers are getting paid by the word, why did they make the catch all rule on page 42 instead of coming up with numerous lengthy rulings, which they certainly could have done?

That would require actual effort and thought, since to write rules you have to think about them and ensure that the rules are reasonably effective.

Bad poetry (White Wolf) does not require much effort. Neither does this:

Tide of Iron:
Fighter attack 1.

At will * Martial, weapon
Standard action Melee weapon
Requirement: Shield.
Target: One creature.
Attack: Str vs AC.
Hit: 1[W] + Str damage, and you push the target one square if it is your size, smaller than you, or one size larger.
You can shift into the space that the target occupied.
Increase damage to 2[W] + Str at 21st level.

Doesn't require much effort to use either, which is good because you're going to be saying 'Tide of Iron' a lot while you v e r y s l o w l y kill the enemies. And yes, they do also have l i t t l e m o n e y. :D

Yet despite that, it's 64 words. Sixty four. And that probably isn't the longest power writeup either, not even close. Writers don't get paid very much per word, but that's still about $2.50 for something that a quick typer can think up, and write down in about fifteen seconds. Not too shabby. Do it a few hundred more times and you have the 4th edition books - and a writer who just pocketed the easiest 500 dollars ever and laughs all the way to the bank, not having any stake in whether his writing is successful or not. Did I mention it's very copy paste friendly?

http://nahc4.com/b/src/124959462842.jpg

But while that's great for the writers, it's terrible for anyone else. Such as anyone who wanted a quality game, and was sorely disappointed.

Of course, when they actually did write rules they didn't fare any better. 'Skill Challenges' were meant to cover the entirety of situations not covered by combat. How many times have they made it completely unworkable? I know it's been at least two, possibly three. Even if they did somehow get it to work though all they've accomplished is making the player throw 10 dice at the problem to make it go away instead of 1. This is not an improvement, it's not better, and unlike an MMO they can't hide behind deliberately making everything that far longer than it needs to to get more subscription fees, because there aren't any. So even if they ever did make Skill Challenges actually work, it would just drag on until everyone gets bored and falls asleep, just like in 4th edition combat, and just like in the click and wait MMOs.

But continuing onwards.


Regardless, first, they came up with this rule because it covers most game situations quite nicely, it encourages spontaneous creativity, and it helps guide inexperienced DMs through the process of refereeing a game, helping him or her become a skilled dungeon master.

Where is the laughing smiley when you need it?


Second, some writers get paid by the word. Most don't.

Finally, the presentation of the 4E books is such because these days, the average consumer does not like big blocks of text.

Nope, and nope. Funny how they get it anyways.


As much as you try to deny it, all one has to do is look through the Player's Handbook to see these types of spells are still there.

1d8+4 damage is not an illusion. Even if the damage is tagged 'illusionary', which makes no difference whatsoever as it comes out of the same inflated HP pool.



Complete Annihilation:

An awesome bolt of multicolored light fires from your eyes and strikes your foe, disintegrating him into a fine dust in a nonmagical way.

At-will: Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee Weapon ("sword", range 10/20)
Target: One Creature
Attack: Con vs AC
Hit: [W] + Con, and the target is slowed.


For the most part, the ritual spells in 4E are the same as non-combat spells in 3.5. If they are useless in one edition, then they are also useless in the other edition.

Last I checked, non combat spells in 3.5 do not have:

A prohibitively long casting time. Some actually do have long casting times, but you can use them at points where there is no time pressure, therefore it is not prohibitive. Needing a door open is an example of something where there is time pressure, otherwise there are any number of means to do it.

A stupidly high gold cost associated with them. The few spells that do have expensive material components (Symbols) never get used except by NPCs as a result of this, and those aren't even non combat spells!

Rituals do, which is why they are less than useless because you can break the door down in less time, with less effort, and with less cost. It probably wouldn't be any louder either. And if you get interrupted you can just start again because the door doesn't suddenly un partially break itself down.

And Knock isn't even the worst one! For epic hilarity, just have a look at that one that wastes 10 minutes to look at something a hundred feet away at most for a short time.

Oh and when I say high cost, I really do mean high cost. Cast about two dozen of them and you're completely broke. I don't mean you have no cash on hand, I mean every copper you've ever had over your entire career is gone.

So that's a few dozen pages that will never get used by anyone that knows better and about one page that will (mostly because Enchant Magic Item and Raise Dead are in there). But then again, the DM has to give the players the exact items they ask for each and every time they ask for them or the game breaks, so you don't need custom crafts and don't save money by doing so, and since it takes forever and a day for things to kill you if you stand there and allow them to you really don't need a raise so maybe not.

Even 3.5 Fighters are not that specific about their item needs and the problem is entirely circumvented by playing a melee class that is actually viable. Yet, the entirety of 4th edition is trapped in that cycle because it literally affects their available wealth by a factor of 5!


For something that is unusable, a lot of players sure seem able to use it. In the examples of its use that are in pod casts, web pages and so forth, it helps considerably with the roleplaying. After each die roll, success of failure, the DM and players play out the results, getting either closer to the goal or coming against obstacles to what they are trying to do.

The examples where they, without fail do not actually use the rules they have written and use this as a point in favor of the rules they have written? I don't expect solid reasoning from a 4th edition player, but even you have to admit that if you aren't playing it you aren't playing it and that's a point against anyone else playing it.

Of course Xenus would rather continue his trolling campaign because I insulted a deeply flawed product he happens to like. I suspect you will do the same, as I have yet to encounter a single 4th edition player able to keep up with a proper argument against it. Maybe not though, we'll see.

[Xenus_Paradox]

It's called not wasting my time on things that are already resolved.

Except you haven't resolved anything. You ignore all arguments you can't counter and shout "I WIN!"

That would require actual effort and thought, since to write rules you have to think about them and ensure that the rules are reasonably effective.

Bad poetry (White Wolf) does not require much effort. Neither does this:

Tide of Iron:
Fighter attack 1.

At will * Martial, weapon
Standard action Melee weapon
Requirement: Shield.
Target: One creature.
Attack: Str vs AC.
Hit: 1[W] + Str damage, and you push the target one square if it is your size, smaller than you, or one size larger.
You can shift into the space that the target occupied.
Increase damage to 2[W] + Str at 21st level.

Doesn't require much effort to use either, which is good because you're going to be saying 'Tide of Iron' a lot while you v e r y s l o w l y kill the enemies. And yes, they do also have l i t t l e m o n e y. :D

Yet despite that, it's 64 words. Sixty four. And that probably isn't the longest power writeup either, not even close. Writers don't get paid very much per word, but that's still about $2.50 for something that a quick typer can think up, and write down in about fifteen seconds. Not too shabby. Do it a few hundred more times and you have the 4th edition books - and a writer who just pocketed the easiest 500 dollars ever and laughs all the way to the bank, not having any stake in whether his writing is successful or not. Did I mention it's very copy paste friendly?

Write out the power, clearly and concisely, using 4E terminology, in half as many words.


http://nahc4.com/b/src/124959462842.jpg

But while that's great for the writers, it's terrible for anyone else. Such as anyone who wanted a quality game, and was sorely disappointed.

Of course, when they actually did write rules they didn't fare any better. 'Skill Challenges' were meant to cover the entirety of situations not covered by combat.
False.


How many times have they made it completely unworkable?

Zero. There was confusion regarding whether the +5 DC for using a skill in an encounter was supposed to apply to skill challenges (they wren't.) Additonally, players complained about the number of skill checks needed. Wizards fixed both by dropping the DCs, dropping the number of successes needed for more complex challenges, and keeping the number of failures needed to fail the challenge at 3 regardless of difficulty. Skill challenges were workable before that, just more difficult than they probably should have been.

I know it's been at least two, possibly three. Even if they did somehow get it to work though all they've accomplished is making the player throw 10 dice at the problem to make it go away instead of 1. This is not an improvement, it's not better, and unlike an MMO they can't hide behind deliberately making everything that far longer than it needs to to get more subscription fees, because there aren't any. So even if they ever did make Skill Challenges actually work, it would just drag on until everyone gets bored and falls asleep, just like in 4th edition combat, and just like in the click and wait MMOs.

[/red] You don't understand the point of skill challenges at all, do you? They don't replace situations where you would roll a single skill check before, they're turning RP situations involving multiple skill checks into an actual encounter.

But continuing onwards.



Where is the laughing smiley when you need it?

[/red]Show me the rules in the 3.5 player's handbook for hurling a bucket of dung in your foe's face without resorting to a catch-all or "DM call". You can't, because it doesn't exist. Nor do rules for sexual encounters, down to the most minute detail including volume of fluid produced and chance of catching the clap. What the frak is your point? EVERY RPG EVER has to draw a line at what things are specifically spelled out in the rules and which you'll have to handle with a spot ruling if and when they come up.[/color]

Nope, and nope. Funny how they get it anyways.

[/red]Nobody authors writing for magazines get paid by the word. Established, popular authors get paid by the book, and receive a chunk of said payment in advance. I don't know which category Wizards employees fall into, but your assertion that no author gets paid other than by the word is demonstrably false.[/color]



1d8+4 damage is not an illusion. Even if the damage is tagged 'illusionary', which makes no difference whatsoever as it comes out of the same inflated HP pool.

It's all words on paper. Please explain to me how this:

Grasping Shadows
At your command, the shadows reach out, grab hold of your foes, and wreath the area in darkness.
Encounter Arcane, Illusion, Implement, Psychic
Standard Action Area burst 1 within 10 squares
Target: Each creature in burst
Attack: Intelligence vs. Will
Hit: 1d8 + Intelligence modifier psychic damage, and target is slowed until the end of your next turn.
Effect: Shadows writhe in the designated area and continue until the end of your next turn. Any creature that enters the area of the grasping shadows takes psychic damage equal to your Intelligence modifier and is slowed until the end of its next turn.

is less illusory than this:

Phantasmal Killer
Illusion (Phantasm) [Fear, Mind-Affecting]
Level: Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target: One living creature
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will disbelief (if interacted with), then Fortitude partial; see text
Spell Resistance: Yes
You create a phantasmal image of the most fearsome creature imaginable to the subject simply by forming the fears of the subject’s subconscious mind into something that its conscious mind can visualize: this most horrible beast. Only the spell’s subject can see the phantasmal killer. You see only a vague shape. The target first gets a Will save to recognize the image as unreal. If that save fails, the phantasm touches the subject, and the subject must succeed on a Fortitude save or die from fear. Even if the Fortitude save is successful, the subject takes 3d6 points of damage.

If the subject of a phantasmal killer attack succeeds in disbelieving and is wearing a helm of telepathy, the beast can be turned upon you. You must then disbelieve it or become subject to its deadly fear attack.

Since you're just being dense at this point I've made something for you.

Personal attack reported.

Complete Annihilation:

An awesome bolt of multicolored light fires from your eyes and strikes your foe, disintegrating him into a fine dust in a nonmagical way.

At-will: Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee Weapon ("sword", range 10/20)
Target: One Creature
Attack: Con vs AC
Hit: [W] + Con, and the target is slowed.

And this was meant to prove what, exactly?

Last I checked, non combat spells in 3.5 do not have:

A prohibitively long casting time. Some actually do have long casting times, but you can use them at points where there is no time pressure, therefore it is not prohibitive. Needing a door open is an example of something where there is time pressure, otherwise there are any number of means to do it.

A stupidly high gold cost associated with them. The few spells that do have expensive material components (Symbols) never get used except by NPCs as a result of this, and those aren't even non combat spells!

Rituals do, which is why they are less than useless because you can break the door down in less time, with less effort, and with less cost. It probably wouldn't be any louder either. And if you get interrupted you can just start again because the door doesn't suddenly un partially break itself down.

And Knock isn't even the worst one! For epic hilarity, just have a look at that one that wastes 10 minutes to look at something a hundred feet away at most for a short time.

Oh and when I say high cost, I really do mean high cost. Cast about two dozen of them and you're completely broke. I don't mean you have no cash on hand, I mean every copper you've ever had over your entire career is gone.

You want noncombat spells that aren't rituals? Here you go:

Shadowed Legion
Your shadow lengthens to veil your allies from your foes.
Daily Shadow, Stance
Minor Action Personal
Effect: Until the stance ends, allies within 5 squares of you can use your Stealth modifier for their Stealth checks.

Lurking Shadow
You meld with the shadows, allowing you to spy on your enemies without fear of discovery.
Daily Shadow
Standard Action Personal
Requirement: You must be in dim light or darkness.
Effect: You become invisible and silent until the end of your next turn, until you move more than 2 squares on your turn, or until you enter a square of bright light. If a creature tries to enter your space before the effect ends, you can either shift 1 square as a free action or remain where you are. If you remain where you are, the effect ends.
Sustain Minor: The effect persists.

Stonebreaker
Without hesitation, you smash through the door.
Encounter Primal
Minor Action Personal
Effect: Until the end of your next turn, you gain a +5 bonus to Strength checks to break objects, and you deal double damage against objects.

Tiger's Leap
With a surge of strength and will, you leap a great distance without a running start.
Encounter Primal
Move Action Personal
Prerequisite: You must be trained in Athletics.
Effect: You make an Athletics check to jump with a +5 power bonus. You are considered to have a running start and can move as far as the check allows.

Hunter's Tune
You shape the flow of sound, containing it and creating an area of silence.
Daily Arcane
Minor Action Ranged 10
Target: One ally
Effect: Until the end of your next turn, the target gains a +5 power bonus to Stealth checks and doesn’t take a penalty to Stealth checks for moving more than 2 squares or running.
Sustain Minor: The effect persists if the target is within range.

Rending Fear of Khirad
A pale blue flame springs up from your brow as you incant the apocalypses over which Khirad has burned, thus hoping to frighten your foe into an admission.
Daily Arcane, Charm, Fear, Implement
Standard Action Close touch
Target: One helpless intelligent enemy
Effect: You demand that the target answer one question. If you share a language, your helpless target provides the answer to the best of its knowledge, without distortion. Each round, ask a new question if your target remains helpless, up to a number of questions equal to 1 + your Charisma modifier.

Just a small sample. Gotta go soon, I'm sure I can find at least a dozen more on the first page of the Compendium search results alone.

So that's a few dozen pages that will never get used by anyone that knows better and about one page that will (mostly because Enchant Magic Item and Raise Dead are in there). But then again, the DM has to give the players the exact items they ask for each and every time they ask for them or the game breaks, so you don't need custom crafts and don't save money by doing so, and since it takes forever and a day for things to kill you if you stand there and allow them to you really don't need a raise so maybe not.

Even 3.5 Fighters are not that specific about their item needs and the problem is entirely circumvented by playing a melee class that is actually viable. Yet, the entirety of 4th edition is trapped in that cycle because it literally affects their available wealth by a factor of 5!



The examples where they, without fail do not actually use the rules they have written and use this as a point in favor of the rules they have written? I don't expect solid reasoning from a 4th edition player, but even you have to admit that if you aren't playing it you aren't playing it and that's a point against anyone else playing it.

Say what? This sentence doesn't parse very well. Are you saying that the DMs in the podcasts are ignoring the printed rules and spot-ruling? If so, I really hope you've never made up a rule on the spot during play that you didn't have time to search for in the rulebooks, because that would by hypocritical.

Of course Xenus would rather continue his trolling campaign because I insulted a deeply flawed product he happens to like. I suspect you will do the same, as I have yet to encounter a single 4th edition player able to keep up with a proper argument against it. Maybe not though, we'll see.


You accuse me of trolling, yet you are the one making inflammatory statements. I, on the other hand, have actually torn your "arguments" to shreds, only to have you ignore my rhetoric and continue shouting "4E suxx0rz" at the top of your lungs.

2hchars

[Furluge]

I'm just going to hit a few of the highlights here. As many people have noticed, a lot of what is going on here is a lot of screaming and plugging of ears. Just to reiterate something I say later on, I played a heck of a lot of 3e, both before and after the revision. I played 2nd as well. I enjoyed 2nd when I played it, though I found it a bit convoluted in it's execution. I liked 3e when it came out and played it and enjoyed it, but after years of playing it I collected my own little folder of gripes with it too. Now 4th is out and a lot of those gripes are fixed, there's some things I don't like about 4e too, but for the most part I think it's good and it does what I want. It lets me make my hero, I feel I have more freedom in making my hero the kind of character I want him to be, and combat is easier to play, more entertaining, and has fewer problems. Someday there will be a 5th edition, and some of the features of 4th edition will get updated too, and if the trend continues I'll probably like those changes too.

Now then, my post, which will probably be my last one, as I realize the futility of trying to communicate with one or two of the posters here. Don't worry, most of the people posting currently aren't in that category. ;)


You use a power out of combat. What happens? No one knows.

The power activates as normal. There is no difference between how a power works in and out of combat. Many powers are designed to work out of combat, such as Haggle, which lets the PC re-roll diplomacy checks. There are also powers which give bonuses to heal checks. Ghost sound and Prestidigitation also are frequently used out of combat. Healing Word and Inspiring Word are two other powers that are frequently used out of combat.


You use your axe to attack the door? Can you break it down? Prior to 4th this was clearly defined. Now? Maybe you can, maybe the door is magically immune to damage because it's not flagged as breakable.

Doors are broken down exactly the same way they were in 3rd edition. Doors have strength DCs required to break them. The DC for the door is based on what the door is made of. You can find these DCs in the PHB. Or you can hack down a door by doing damage to it and breaking it per the rules for damaging objects which are in the DMG. The only thing that changed is what the DCs are and objects don't have hardness anymore.


You kill an enemy and take his sword. What does it do? No one knows. What if the sword is used to deliver a poison attack? Is that a factor of the sword, the creature holding the sword, or does it just kind of happen? No one knows.

You obviously weren't paying attention to creatures like the Bearded Devil in 3rd edition and their mystical magical glaives of magical disappearing. This issue isn't unique to 4th edition at all. But to answer your example, in most cases the special ability is a function of the creature, except in cases when the DM wants to award loot that way. ;)


Just like in a video game, the more you try to be creative with it and interact with it in unexpected ways, the more you hit these invisible walls of programming limitations. Except it's a tabletop game, what programming limitations?

Not really. In my experience the amount of freedom we have hasn't dropped since playing 4th edition. Creativity and ingenuity still rule the day. What has changed is that martial powers have become much more capable, while spell-casters have become a little less capable. That's a good and bad thing depending on which side of that equation you're on. Realize, I've played a lot of 3.0e, 3.5e, and 4e. Hell I've even played some AD&D2. I liked 3e when it came out, I like the 3.5 revisions, and I like 4e. I feel they addressed a lot of problems


Long statement about WOTC's sales number

Neither you nor I know what WOTC's sales numbers are, but considering the PHB2 was on the New York Times bestseller's list I doubt they're hurting. Also as another poster has previously stated the whole core book statement is similar to how the Complete series and races series were core books, but LFR and Eberron books were not core. There is nothing wildly different about the publishing scheme used in 4th ed, the organization has just been changed to help things sell better. News Classes and races come out in PHBs. New rules systems and DM advice comes out in DMGs. More Monsters come in MMs. New theme-focused powers and systems for classes of existing power sources come out in Powers books.


Yes, because it takes so much more skill to say 'I attack' 20 times instead of 2. Why, it's so much more skill that you could not even rig a tape recorder to repeat it.

You missed the point. It requires more skill because things such as flanking, pushing enemies into favorable position, aiding another, bull rushing, etc. are used more because you need those little +2's to win, where as previously they were ignored because your stats did the fighting for you. Also, combat in 4th edition doesn't last any longer than 3.5 combat, and in many cases it runs faster.


When you fight an enemy higher level than you in 3.5, you are up for a significantly harder fight. The primary reason for this is that it probably has abilities you can't counter yet due to being higher level but simply having better stats is also a factor. Then you get into DDO and enemies have much more HP, but the other stats are worse. Or you get into 4th, where the primary defining trait of any non minion is a small truckload of HP. Unless they're an elite, in which case they get an 18 wheeler full of HP instead.

Except that it's not, at you're ignoring the entire point of what I was telling you. You were complaining that everything in 4th you faced was geared to be higher level than the PCs, when it is not.


Nope. A +3 sword is not as good as a +1 Holy sword, but it is still better than a +1 sword. There are still benefits gained from the upgrade even if the upgrade itself is not optimal. Therefore, you are always moving upwards even though you would move upwards better by taking the Holy sword and casting Greater Magic Weapon on it.

In 4th, if you get a high level vendor trash item (and most of them are) you are often better off straight up trading it for a lower level item, even if said item costs even less than the sale value simply because you would get more use out of the lower level item than either the high level item or 20% of the high level item's 'value' in gold.

No dice friend. I can think of plenty of 3.5 things that some people consider to be in the same boat. Should we whip out the 3.5 Magic Item Compendium and the 3.5 DMG and see what kind of silliness we can find within?


You can't convert 3rd to 4th at all. Not just because they never bothered releasing a conversion table, but because most of it cannot be converted at all. There's no parallel in the 4th edition world for any such thing as an illusionist or necromancer, there's no parallel for characters who can actually influence the world in any way, nothing.

Really? Can't convert either of them over. Funny, I must have imagined all those illusion wizard spells and that raise dead ritual. Someone is going to have to tell my wizard that Illusory Ambush, Phantom Bolt, Grasping Shadows, Phantasmal Terrain, and Spectral Hound don't exist, among other things.

Oh, also, as someone who CONVERTED a character from 2nd to 3rd with my DM, let me say that the AD&D2e > 3e rules were not a bed a roses. You esentially were given a guide line to figure out what all your 18/00 stuff converted to in the new non-insane numbering system, then make that character a certain level in the 3e version of his class, were told to roll HD for each level according to the new 3e rules, and were told to use gold to buy equipment. In 4e they told you to just use the new rules and try to capture the spirit of the character as best you can rather than trying to do a straight conversion, you know, because that's never worked so well anyway. I found my Ftr/Wiz/Spellsword much easier to do in 4th edition than he ever was in 3rd edition.


For example, I thought one of the best things that WotC did for D&D was develop the Open Gaming License for d20 (OGL, at least I'm pretty sure that is what it stands for). The new gaming license for 4th edition (don't remember what it is called), seems more restrictive, and almost seems to stifle some of the third parties that were developing products for d20.

The new license is called the GSL and yes it is more restrictive. I too miss the d20 OGL, but I can't be sure if it's really Hasbro's fault. I think the main reason the OGL died is that it seemed like the OGL got taken advantage of a whole lot. The idea behind the OGL was you would still need to buy a PHB and DMG to use the new material, because you'd need basic character building information. But a lot of games, many of them the best ones done in OGL, like Mutants and Masterminds, were written in such a way that they had next to nothing to do with the original game and you really don't need the PHB to play them. The Pathfinder book doesn't really need the PHB to use either. I imagine that WOTC wasn't particularly happy about writting the OGL and then seeing how it was used to kind of "write them out" of the whole system. Now the GSL is written so that it pretty much restricts you to making new classes, monsters, and campaign settings, which is what I imagine WOTC wanted to see all along.


Fact is, 3.5 has a jazillion billion different frigging esoteric subsystems that take a slide rule to calculate. I don't want to have to roll to see if I penetrate Spell Resistance, after rolling to see if I overcome ASF, then the monster rolls its save, then I roll damage... then repeat for each other monster in the area of effect. Or how about making your attack roll, then rolling for concealment, then rolling to see if their fortification goes off... Tracking skill points for a character created at 12th level, who has 2 base classes and 3 PrCs, with vastly different skill lists...

I'd like to point out there is some definite truth to this statement. Now granted that's an extreme case, but I remember seeing things like this in gameplay. Remember, I enjoyed 3.0 and 3.5. I got many many hour of enjoyment out of both, but seing things like concealment just become an attack role penalty made me happy. Also being able to roll a level 25 4e character, complete with equipment, in a timely fashion, use it effectively, and play in a combat that flowed along without any real hitches or confusion, is something I was very pleased to see in 4e.


Anyway, the problem I see is that 3.5 (and some earlier versions) was complex for a reason, it was trying to create rules to emulate how your character would interact with the rpg world in a believable and consistent manner. 4E threw most of that out the window to create a simple combat and leveling system with little regard either for why anything worked the way it did or how that impacted things in non-combat situations or even doing non-standard things in combat.

I don't really see where this idea came from. My characters engage in pretty much the same activities that they did in 3.5. I don't really see how 4e characters are any more or less believable than their 3.5 cousins.


I mean, 4E went into great lengths to separate the classes in martial, arcane and divine categories (and later primal and others), and then did nothing to have those power sources mean anything except maybe how each power is described.

There are a number of feats and magic items which are restricted to a particular power source. Power sources also tend to have similar themes in the way they work. For example, Martial power sources tend to target AC most of the time, Arcane power sources tend to target reflex, will, and fort, and tend to target all creatures in an area. Divine powers tend to be less powerful, have more party assistance abilities, but usually only target enemies for offensive abilities. Most classes with the Psionic power sources don't get encounter powers and instead get additional at-wills, and all their at-wills tend to be augmentable with power points. Realize one of the main purposes of those power sources was for expansion.

Also, players can certainly use magic items a higher level than they are. They just can't /craft/ items higher level then they are. Characters forget earlier powers to make life easier on players. It was a design choice to keep the amount of power-options from becoming to cumbersome. You know, like how spells ended up in previous editions. Also you can still make items in 4e, but yes it's not the great boon it used to be (On the other hand it's easier to do.) But I'd like to point out that researching and creating new spells wasn't a set in stone defined process in 3.5 either, so it's no surprise it's not part of 4th.


Can you make a Mystic Theurge? How about an Eldritch Warrior. I think one of the biggest failings of 4th edition is multi classing. 3.5 had a robust system for being almost able to build exactly the type of character you would want... in my cursory examinations of 4th Ed. it looked like if I wanted to 'multiclass' I could just take a feat from another class at specific points.

First I would point out those two probably work out best with the current multiclassing rules, if I remember how they played. Things like Spellsword are closer to the Swordmage class, though depending on how you build said swordmage he could be closer to the Eldritch Knight too. The Invoker also could be a bit Mystic Therugeish, though it's purely divine. He's in the PHB2, but he's a divine themed character who uses his abilities to control the battlefield.

There is a system called Hybrid Characters which is coming out in PHB3. The reasoning given is that the designers wanted to keep the more "advanced" things in later books. IE: It's harder to "gimp" yourself with the current multiclass system than it is to "gimp" yourself with the hybrid character system. I imagine the hybrid classes will fill in any options you feel you're missing. Note that you can still use the multiclass feats with a hybrid character, giving you some more options.


I dont like the new magic system. Daily powers, encounter powers, at will powers, etc. 3.5 people who used magic wield great power, but must be careful to not overextend themselves leaving them vulnerable later. That is part of the strategy. Also it seems that a lot of the non combat related spells that I like are missing (maybe they added them in later, I haven't looked at 4E lately).

The new system takes some getting used to. What it does manage to do though is stop two problems I saw in 3.5. 1) Low level wizard casts three magic missiles then takes a nap. 2) High level wizard outshines the entire party by casting bunches of delayed fireballs, fireballs, etc. 3) High level wizard/sorcerrer finds the best spells out of each level and memorizes several copies of them. I think the new system does a pretty good job of it.


Nice dodge. You completely failed to address the entire non combat system was broken on release to the point of being unusable, and this is still true after it was rewritten several times over, with the only change being the nature of its total nonfunctionality. You also completely failed to address that even if it did work, you're still having to roll 10 dice instead of 1 to do the same thing, so you still spend more time throwing dice at the problem until it goes away, or just ignoring the rules to deal with it.

First of all, I've played a few times under the skill challenge system as it was originally released. It was far from broken, it was just a little harder to succeed than it is now. Secondly your "roll 10 dice instead of 1" analogy doesn't hold any water, because skill challenges represent large, complex, challenges. If something comes up where you only need one skill check then you just roll ONE SKILL CHECK. Skill challenges are there to provide a framework for a DM to create a challenge that doesn't relate to combat, such as preparing for a siege, saving an airship that is falling out of the sky in the middle of a storm, or effectively navigating through a vast, dangerous, uncharted wilderness. I don't think it's a perfect system, but I think it's a concept that has some good merit, and it provides some framework for DMs to help frame their ideas, rather than trying to free-form it with flowcharts or some such other thing.

[RictrasShard]

It's called not wasting my time on things that are already resolved.

In other words, avoiding points for which you don't have an argument.


That would require actual effort and thought, since to write rules you have to think about them and ensure that the rules are reasonably effective.

This has been done for every edition of D&D.


Bad poetry (White Wolf) does not require much effort. Neither does this:

Tide of Iron:
Fighter attack 1.

At will * Martial, weapon
Standard action Melee weapon
Requirement: Shield.
Target: One creature.
Attack: Str vs AC.
Hit: 1[W] + Str damage, and you push the target one square if it is your size, smaller than you, or one size larger.
You can shift into the space that the target occupied.
Increase damage to 2[W] + Str at 21st level.

Doesn't require much effort to use either, which is good because you're going to be saying 'Tide of Iron' a lot while you v e r y s l o w l y kill the enemies. And yes, they do also have l i t t l e m o n e y. :D

Moving your enemy can be a very effective tactic. As for the power not being effective for quick kills, that is because you have chosen an At-Will ability, which generally do the least damage of the combat abilities.


Of course, when they actually did write rules they didn't fare any better. 'Skill Challenges' were meant to cover the entirety of situations not covered by combat.

Other posters have answered this much better than I can.


Nope, and nope. Funny how they get it anyways.


As someone who used to be in the writing business, I know personally that most writers don't get paid by the word. However, this is not really important to the discussion, so I shall not dwell on it anymore, unless for some reason it does become important to the discussion.

As for the average consumer these days not liking big blocks of text, this is very true, and very obvious. All you have to do is look through these forums to see it for yourself.


1d8+4 damage is not an illusion. Even if the damage is tagged 'illusionary', which makes no difference whatsoever as it comes out of the same inflated HP pool.

Your argument is flawed, being as every edition has illusions that do damage.


Last I checked, non combat spells in 3.5 do not have:

A prohibitively long casting time. Some actually do have long casting times, but you can use them at points where there is no time pressure, therefore it is not prohibitive.

If you can use spells without time pressure in third edition, you can do the same in fourth.


Needing a door open is an example of something where there is time pressure, otherwise there are any number of means to do it.

Sometimes there is time pressure, in which case you use the tried and true tactic of breaking through the door, just like you did in previous editions. Usually, though, time pressure is not an issue.


A stupidly high gold cost associated with them. The few spells that do have expensive material components (Symbols) never get used except by NPCs as a result of this, and those aren't even non combat spells!

I looked through the list, and found four that couldn't easily be afforded by characters capable of casting them. Of those four, two of them were incredibly powerful spells that should not be easily done.


And Knock isn't even the worst one! For epic hilarity, just have a look at that one that wastes 10 minutes to look at something a hundred feet away at most for a short time.

I looked through the list again, and found no such ritual. However, I did find several more of the illusion spells you claim don't exist in 4E.


Oh and when I say high cost, I really do mean high cost. Cast about two dozen of them and you're completely broke. I don't mean you have no cash on hand, I mean every copper you've ever had over your entire career is gone.

Of the 29 rituals that are of higher level than my character, he would be able to afford to cast 16 of them. Of the ones his level and lower, he would be able to cast them repeatedly. My character has not yet made 1000 gp.


The examples where they, without fail do not actually use the rules they have written and use this as a point in favor of the rules they have written? I don't expect solid reasoning from a 4th edition player, but even you have to admit that if you aren't playing it [i]you aren't playing it and that's a point against anyone else playing it.

When using the skill challenges, you are using the rules they have written, and you are playing the game.

[GramercyRiff]

Bad poetry (White Wolf) does not require much effort. Neither does this:

Tide of Iron:
Fighter attack 1.

At will * Martial, weapon
Standard action Melee weapon
Requirement: Shield.
Target: One creature.
Attack: Str vs AC.
Hit: 1[W] + Str damage, and you push the target one square if it is your size, smaller than you, or one size larger.
You can shift into the space that the target occupied.
Increase damage to 2[W] + Str at 21st level.

Doesn't require much effort to use either, which is good because you're going to be saying 'Tide of Iron' a lot while you v e r y s l o w l y kill the enemies. And yes, they do also have l i t t l e m o n e y.

You should realize that this power is actually quite good. It's used in conjunction with many other abilties/feats to control the enemy. Forced movement and knockdown is good stuff. This power provides this control...at will.

The only monsters that can take a long time to kill in 4E are some Solos; and that's if your party is suboptimal/unoptimized. Some characters built to nova can kill those Solos in one round in extreme cases. A party built to nova can dispatch Solos with little effort.

[SquelchHU]

You should realize that this power is actually quite good. It's used in conjunction with many other abilties/feats to control the enemy. Forced movement and knockdown is good stuff. This power provides this control...at will.

The only monsters that can take a long time to kill in 4E are some Solos; and that's if your party is suboptimal/unoptimized. Some characters built to nova can kill those Solos in one round in extreme cases. A party built to nova can dispatch Solos with little effort.

And then you realize it's just 'I attack' with a 5 foot move attached, and a much lower accuracy and number of attacks than 'I attack' in any other edition while also having more enemy HP to deal with - in other words, see through the obfuscation and you realize that it's worse effect wise, in addition to being an obvious writer money grub.

Wake up. And I mean that in the most literal, non insulting way possible. I'm also not directing this at you specifically, but at anyone who thinks minor push/pull effects constitute influencing and shaping the battlefield. At the very least this indicates they have never played any prior edition.

As for the optimized bit, thank you for making that point for me, as a common false argument presented by the 4th edition players is that optimization is less of a priority and that so is equipment, when in fact both of these points are horrifically wrong, such that your choices are made for you at the start, outright eliminating many of them (Tiefling Fighters... yeah right) while enforcing a 'Master Race' type theorem where all of race x belong to class y (or maybe class z, if you're lucky enough to have more than one class that uses those two stats)

Don't want to pick the right race? Have fun being less effective than you otherwise would be by a much larger margin than undertaking comparable actions in 3.5 (Half Orc Bard, say) as your effectiveness will drop by 25%, 50%, or even higher. In effect, being hopelessly gimped at character creation. No other edition does that. Even 3.5 doesn't hopelessly gimp you for picking a Fighter until after about 30% of the game's levels have passed (7+).

On the contrary, if you pick the right race and right stat and so forth... you get bigger numbers. And that's about it. Even the ways of 'breaking' the game by making an overpowered character still manage to be entirely dull and uninteresting. Compare to 3.5's gamebreakers, which at least get lots of cool effects for various purposes so even though you aren't being challenged while playing such a character, you're at least doing something fun. 4th's gamebreakers, at best just manage to be a relief since you're stuck grinding for fewer rounds.

I don't know about you, but I'd consider having to optimize to the maximum just to make the game more bearable a critical design flaw, both because I am encouraged to actually do this, and because it is clearly unbearable without doing those things. Miss, miss, low damage, miss, low damage, miss... that would frustrate anyone after all. And this is coming from someone who enjoys optimizing, and regularly does so for fun, even in regards to things I never have any intention of actually using such as very high level monsters.

I can't see anyone who is less thrilled about number crunching being happy with it, which again explains the poor sales. Certainly not those who actually bought into the hype that they can just play and be productive and contributing members of the party with whatever they want to play!

And then there's the item system. Oh, the item system. I've already covered how higher level, and thus higher cost items are not necessarily better in a very major way, such that level 9 items can easily constitute 'end game equipment'. And they aren't even rare level 9 items, they have the same availability as any other level 9 item. No Bloodstone clause for you. But another common, and false meme is that 4th edition is less magic item dependent than previous editions because you only need 2 or 3 items. Yeah right.

Ever played a 3.5 game where an Artificer or other such crafter was decking everyone out with equipment in every slot, and nice stuff too? Well, all 4th edition characters are like that, at all levels except maybe the first few because they don't have it yet, just to achieve basic functioning. What's more, those items do more for them than class, or race, or even level (though level does limit gold for items). If you strip most of the items off of a 4th edition character they may very well find themselves completely unable to affect the enemy at all, or at least have dramatically lower accuracy (50% decrease in hits or more) and damage for the things that do hit. Nothing in any prior edition has ever been more gear dependent than this. Even a 3.5 Fighter loses less (but not much less, granted) if he loses most of his gear for whatever reason.

Now if it were established from the beginning that this was a game where you were what you wore, even more so than before and that it's entirely MMO like in that only numbers matter and only maxed numbers can keep up, because MMOs are always balanced around the high end there wouldn't be any problem. Those who wanted to play WoW item farming but didn't have access to a computer or whatever could do that and take one of the handful of viable builds to cap (and then complain there's still no raids). But they are being directly and actively misleading, as what they claim their game is about is drastically different than what it actually is about. There are a fair number of people buying into this. You can see a few of them around here. And these people will even tell you straight up how much they're enjoying playing the game.

But even a cursory examination reveals that they aren't actually playing it, so whether they enjoy whatever it is they're doing or not has no bearing on 4th edition, however the fact they're actively avoiding actually playing it is quite damning to the book series. It also means they have nothing to say about it, because the moment they admit what they're playing is not the actual rules they're conceding defeat in that they had to ignore the rules to enjoy themselves, therefore the rules are bad.

[GramercyRiff]

And then you realize it's just 'I attack' with a 5 foot move attached, and a much lower accuracy and number of attacks than 'I attack' in any other edition while also having more enemy HP to deal with - in other words, see through the obfuscation and you realize that it's worse effect wise, in addition to being an obvious writer money grub.

Wake up. And I mean that in the most literal, non insulting way possible. I'm also not directing this at you specifically, but at anyone who thinks minor push/pull effects constitute influencing and shaping the battlefield. At the very least this indicates they have never played any prior edition.

Like I posted in my previous post, Tide of Iron (and other powers like it) becomes good when you combine it with other stuff. It goes from a minor forced movement ability to one that truly controls part of the battlefield. It becomes something far greater than "I attack". As for previous editions and melee control, there are plenty of melee builds that control and influence the battlefield, the Crusader (Thicket of Blades ftw) being the base class for many of them.


As for the optimized bit, thank you for making that point for me, as a common false argument presented by the 4th edition players is that optimization is less of a priority and that so is equipment, when in fact both of these points are horrifically wrong, such that your choices are made for you at the start, outright eliminating many of them (Tiefling Fighters... yeah right) while enforcing a 'Master Race' type theorem where all of race x belong to class y (or maybe class z, if you're lucky enough to have more than one class that uses those two stats)

Optimization has been a priority in DnD since at least 3E. I was too young to get charop when I played original AD&D and AD&D 2E. I have to assume it was important then too.


Don't want to pick the right race? Have fun being less effective than you otherwise would be by a much larger margin than undertaking comparable actions in 3.5 (Half Orc Bard, say) as your effectiveness will drop by 25%, 50%, or even higher. In effect, being hopelessly gimped at character creation. No other edition does that. Even 3.5 doesn't hopelessly gimp you for picking a Fighter until after about 30% of the game's levels have passed (7+).

On the contrary, if you pick the right race and right stat and so forth... you get bigger numbers. And that's about it. Even the ways of 'breaking' the game by making an overpowered character still manage to be entirely dull and uninteresting. Compare to 3.5's gamebreakers, which at least get lots of cool effects for various purposes so even though you aren't being challenged while playing such a character, you're at least doing something fun. 4th's gamebreakers, at best just manage to be a relief since you're stuck grinding for fewer rounds.

I can't really disagree with this for the most part because I do prefer 3.5 as I previously stated. For the record I could see a Half Orc Bard rocking with a Warlord hybrid or MC. Of course, Dragonborn would be better. Still I get your point, and don't disagree enough to actually counter it.:)


I don't know about you, but I'd consider having to optimize to the maximum just to make the game more bearable a critical design flaw, both because I am encouraged to actually do this, and because it is clearly unbearable without doing those things. Miss, miss, low damage, miss, low damage, miss... that would frustrate anyone after all. And this is coming from someone who enjoys optimizing, and regularly does so for fun, even in regards to things I never have any intention of actually using such as very high level monsters.

Even the unoptimized can hit and do decent damage with a Warlord in the party. Of course, having to have a Warlord in the party to get decent damage from the unoptimized is a knock against the game from some people's perspective. Seeing that I love the Warlord makes be too biased to actually give a good opinion, so I'll bow out of this one.


I can't see anyone who is less thrilled about number crunching being happy with it, which again explains the poor sales. Certainly not those who actually bought into the hype that they can just play and be productive and contributing members of the party with whatever they want to play!

Where is the proof that 4E has poor sales? I'd like a reference for that please. It's news to me.


And then there's the item system. Oh, the item system. I've already covered how higher level, and thus higher cost items are not necessarily better in a very major way, such that level 9 items can easily constitute 'end game equipment'. And they aren't even rare level 9 items, they have the same availability as any other level 9 item. No Bloodstone clause for you. But another common, and false meme is that 4th edition is less magic item dependent than previous editions because you only need 2 or 3 items. Yeah right.

Ever played a 3.5 game where an Artificer or other such crafter was decking everyone out with equipment in every slot, and nice stuff too? Well, all 4th edition characters are like that, at all levels except maybe the first few because they don't have it yet, just to achieve basic functioning. What's more, those items do more for them than class, or race, or even level (though level does limit gold for items). If you strip most of the items off of a 4th edition character they may very well find themselves completely unable to affect the enemy at all, or at least have dramatically lower accuracy (50% decrease in hits or more) and damage for the things that do hit. Nothing in any prior edition has ever been more gear dependent than this. Even a 3.5 Fighter loses less (but not much less, granted) if he loses most of his gear for whatever reason.

Magic items have always been a big part of the game. In 3E there were some world shattering items; Candle of Invocation I'm looking at you! Any melee in 3.5 has to have magic items. Pretty much all casters have to have magic items, though they're less reliant because of spellcasting. 4E is no different. It actually encourages you to give out items more than 3E did, giving a schedule to DM's about how and when to give out magic items (this was for the unitiated of course). WoTC did state, however, that characters would be less reliant on magic items if I remember correctly. Anyone who has ever played DnD surely saw through that ruse.


Now if it were established from the beginning that this was a game where you were what you wore, even more so than before and that it's entirely MMO like in that only numbers matter and only maxed numbers can keep up, because MMOs are always balanced around the high end there wouldn't be any problem. Those who wanted to play WoW item farming but didn't have access to a computer or whatever could do that and take one of the handful of viable builds to cap (and then complain there's still no raids). But they are being directly and actively misleading, as what they claim their game is about is drastically different than what it actually is about. There are a fair number of people buying into this. You can see a few of them around here. And these people will even tell you straight up how much they're enjoying playing the game.

But even a cursory examination reveals that they aren't actually playing it, so whether they enjoy whatever it is they're doing or not has no bearing on 4th edition, however the fact they're actively avoiding actually playing it is quite damning to the book series. It also means they have nothing to say about it, because the moment they admit what they're playing is not the actual rules they're conceding defeat in that they had to ignore the rules to enjoy themselves, therefore the rules are bad.


Bah, 4E is no more like an MMO than any other incarnation of DnD. MMO's are based off of DnD (oh vicious circle here we go!). 4E is a miniature skirmish combat game, just like every other previous edition that uses narrative and roleplaying to tell a story. You bring up some good arguments as to the shortcomings of 4E (yep there are definitely shortcomings), but the MMO bit doesn't hold water. It's a cop out reason to rail against the game. And it's not even true. Stick to your potent guns when displaying your dislike/disdain for the game. That one shoots blanks. People see what they want to see though, so I'm not really going argue very long or hard about it.

I'm not going to address that last paragraph because I have no context as to how to address it. I'm not going searching for that context either.

[SquelchHU]

Like I posted in my previous post, Tide of Iron (and other powers like it) becomes good when you combine it with other stuff. It goes from a minor forced movement ability to one that truly controls part of the battlefield. It becomes something far greater than "I attack". As for previous editions and melee control, there are plenty of melee builds that control and influence the battlefield, the Crusader (Thicket of Blades ftw) being the base class for many of them.

Moving one person a few feet, maybe is not battlefield control.

A 3.5 Crusader with reach might be battlefield control if set up right, and possibly Enlarged.

A wide variety of spells are actual battlefield control, that actually inhibit the enemy's ability to fight back.

Now that I think about it, there is one 4th edition build that provides viable crowd control. Of course, most of the people arguing in favor of 4th edition choose to ignore the Orbizard and his unbreakable stunlocks as acknowledging the existence of that build opens up many other flaws. Like the Orbizard automatically winning every battle in there. It's also worth mentioning the key power used there is only level 1, if I'm recalling the build correctly. Because higher level abilities are not necessarily better either.

Oh and by the way, anyone with the Knockback feat has 'Tide of Iron', except better (enemies can be moved more than 5 feet, you get more than one attack a round starting around level 5-6) which means a 3.5 melee character with a single feat is doing better than anything 4th has to offer, despite being the red headed stepchild of the edition, and despite not even really trying. If you have Dungeonscape you can make this even better.


Optimization has been a priority in DnD since at least 3E. I was too young to get charop when I played original AD&D and AD&D 2E. I have to assume it was important then too.

Never to this extreme, and it's never tried to come right out and say it's not before. 'It's a roleplaying game', as if this were somehow inimical to making effective characters certainly has been claimed, but never one where the default assumption of a standard game is maximum optimization. You do not even encounter this when specifically playing with a DM that tries for this.


Even the unoptimized can hit and do decent damage with a Warlord in the party. Of course, having to have a Warlord in the party to get decent damage from the unoptimized is a knock against the game from some people's perspective. Seeing that I love the Warlord makes be too biased to actually give a good opinion, so I'll bow out of this one.

That's another thing the supporters don't like acknowledging, due to the relatively large bonuses handed out by the Warlord opening up several other cans of worms. The biggest one being that since there isn't any room for strategy or tactics, the best you can do is pile your numbers up and focus on a single tactic, which just lets you win by numerical superiority. Naturally getting large bonuses to whatever you do is a big part of this. Cue parties that are 4 carbon copies of build x, and 1 Warlord. There's a few options for build x, but they're going to all be the same, because there's no reason for them not to be.


Where is the proof that 4E has poor sales? I'd like a reference for that please. It's news to me.

Can't find the link anymore, I had it bookmarked on my old computer. But it was WotC under oath in court stating that they had sold 'hundreds of thousands of core books'. All 4th edition books are core, so this is 'hundreds of thousands' split about 15 different ways at that time. And as the context was WotC trying to claim damages because their books had been leaked and pirated, it was in their best interest to make the numbers seem as impressive as possible without lying under oath. So if they could have said a larger number, they would have. Yet they did not.

It's also not too hard to see why they do not. Ignoring the various design flaws which make many people simply stay from it, and those few that do play it refuse to acknowledge any flaw because then they would have to acknowledge the many flaws, the way the book system itself is set up, you have little reason to buy many of them.

If you play class x you buy the core books, and maybe 1 or 2 others. The rest have nothing for you. At all.

Compare to 3.5, where you could at least find a little something in any book, even if it wasn't the right class. A melee class taking 'Lion Totem Barbarian' from Complete Champion (aimed at divine casters) for example.

So while everything may be core in 4th, no one has any incentive to buy everything, or even most things no matter how big of a power gamer they are. And then the volume of books being produced is higher, which just magnifies this effect. I'd go so far as to say the only ones profiting here are the writers, due to the verbose, but content light write ups in there.


Magic items have always been a big part of the game. In 3E there were some world shattering items; Candle of Invocation I'm looking at you! Any melee in 3.5 has to have magic items. Pretty much all casters have to have magic items, though they're less reliant because of spellcasting. 4E is no different. It actually encourages you to give out items more than 3E did, giving a schedule to DM's about how and when to give out magic items (this was for the unitiated of course). WoTC did state, however, that characters would be less reliant on magic items if I remember correctly. Anyone who has ever played DnD surely saw through that ruse.

True. However my point is that they've became even more important, critical to you being able to do anything at all even, while the game claims they are less important. And that's just going to result in resentment from anyone gullible enough to believe they understand their own game. Which they clearly don't. Just look at Skill Challenges, take... how many is it now? I still don't know.

As for them giving out items, that's something I forgot to cover. See, depending on how you give out items your PCs can end up with 5 times less stuff or worse. That's massive. And what makes them suddenly end up with 20% or less of their mandatory Christmas Tree? Not picking out the exact optimal items for them and giving it to them. Which means if they don't know what's optimal or don't care, or you don't give them exactly what they want they quickly reach the 'hopelessly gimped' stage. Especially given how wealth scales. What was it, increase by a factor of 5 per 5 levels? It was something like that, where the endgame stuff is 7 and 8 digits.

Even games like WoW offer some gear options in your grind.


Bah, 4E is no more like an MMO than any other incarnation of DnD. MMO's are based off of DnD (oh vicious circle here we go!). 4E is a miniature skirmish combat game, just like every other previous edition that uses narrative and roleplaying to tell a story. You bring up some good arguments as to the shortcomings of 4E (yep there are definitely shortcomings), but the MMO bit doesn't hold water. It's a cop out reason to rail against the game. And it's not even true. Stick to your potent guns when displaying your dislike/disdain for the game. That one shoots blanks.

I'm not going to address that last paragraph because I have no context as to how to address it. I'm not going searching for that context either.

This is not true at all. 4th is considerably more blatant about this, even going so far as to borrow some of the terminology. MMOs didn't even start going until... what? The 90s? That rules out 1st and 2nd. 3rd and 3.5 had a few things in common, but not enough to give an 'MMO on paper' argument any merit. 4th does.

Now obviously, I don't have a problem with all MMOs. The fact I am on a member of a forum, posting in an area that requires an active subscription to access should be all the proof needed for that. I do have a problem with most of the other ones because they are too slow paced and require too little interaction and decision making to even qualify as a game. But that isn't my point. My point is when you take a tabletop game, whose only advantage over computer games is the ability to employ things like imagination and creativity to influence the outcome of events in unexpected ways, and then remove that, you are also removing the only reason to ever play it.

And the comparisons to DDO was a different point, in response to the long forgotten original poster. He wanted DDO to be more like 4th, only to be countered by me with 'It already is in many ways. *list* If it did anymore, everyone would leave.'

The last paragraph is directed to the 4th edition supporters here and elsewhere who repeat the same points to the effect of claiming they enjoy the edition but when you probe a bit you learn the things that they like about it aren't a part of 4th edition at all. They just made them up. And you can do that anywhere. It doesn't mean anything.

You aren't doing that, so don't worry about it.

[RictrasShard]

Moving one person a few feet, maybe is not battlefield control.

If you don't think so, you're not considering all the uses of it. You can move the enemy away from a weaker teammate, or into the reach of a heavy hitter, or into a position where a ranged combatant can take a shot at it. Also, you could be moving the enemy into hazardous terrain, or into hindering terrain to affect its movement. You could also be moving it into the radius of a threatening spell, or out of the radius of a helpful spell.


Now that I think about it, there is one 4th edition build that provides viable crowd control. Of course, most of the people arguing in favor of 4th edition choose to ignore the Orbizard and his unbreakable stunlocks as acknowledging the existence of that build opens up many other flaws. Like the Orbizard automatically winning every battle in there. It's also worth mentioning the key power used there is only level 1, if I'm recalling the build correctly. Because higher level abilities are not necessarily better either.

I'm not familiar with this build, so I cannot reliably comment on it. Every edition has exploitable builds though, such as pun pun and codzilla.


Oh and by the way, anyone with the Knockback feat has 'Tide of Iron', except better (enemies can be moved more than 5 feet, you get more than one attack a round starting around level 5-6) which means a 3.5 melee character with a single feat is doing better than anything 4th has to offer, despite being the red headed stepchild of the edition, and despite not even really trying. If you have Dungeonscape you can make this even better.

I cannot find the exact description of the knockback feat, but I did find forums where people discuss it. According to them, knockback only allows you to push the target five feet, and you aren't able to move into their space like you can with Tide of Iron. Furthemore, this feat has a prerequisite of not only two other feats, but the character also has to have either size large or a powerful build.

I have to go afk for a bit, but I'll be back later to counter your other arguments.

[SquelchHU]

Finally, some things worth responding to.

Orbizard - Wizard with an Orb. He gets a bunch of stuff that stacks save penalties. He uses a power that stops the enemy from acting until they make a save. Except they can't do that, because the save isn't passable due to the stacked penalties.

See how even breaking the game turns out boring?

As for the Knockback feat, I just got out my Races of Stone book. You're wrong. There is no limit on the distance you can move the enemy, further since you add your Power Attack damage to the check the likelihood they will move quite far is very high indeed, since they move 5 feet + 5 feet for every 5 points they fail the check. There is however a weapon property called Knockback that is vastly inferior and does have a limit of 5 feet. But with the feat, you can expect enemies to move 20 feet, 30 feet, or even more. And moving enemies around does more in 3.5, because there the melee enemies need a full attack action to do anything that matters, so if your melee guy knocks the other melee guy away from someone such that everyone is at least 10 feet out of their reach, you can basically ignore them that round since all they can do is move and swing once. Whereas in 4th, they just move action right back, and what have you done except dance the tango? They can still do everything they were going to do just as well as they can do it before, you haven't impeded them in the slightest.

As for the costs to use it, one feat is obligatory for any and all characters. Just as there are obligatory feats for 4th edition characters, that everyone absolutely must have to not be gimped. The other is a feat tax, granted as there is no reason to bother moving people around if you cannot do it as a free effect on an attack so it's really only there to make the ability more expensive. Though it does add a +4 onto it, getting about 4 more feet.

The size is a non factor, as there are multiple races with Powerful Build, and those that don't but are still Medium can still permanently become Large quite easily. That's what? 10 races that can be good at melee? More? I'm not even going to try to count up all the races that are either Medium humanoids, Medium with Powerful Build, or actually Large, but suffice it to say that is not a restriction.

By the way, Dungeonscape gives you the ability to do what amounts to good damage at the levels you get it, still stays a decent bonus even much later by knocking enemies into solid objects. And it applies each and every time you do that. That means even the 3.5 Fighter (or any other melee really, but it's fun to use the Fighter for these examples) is better at playing Pinball than any 4th edition character ever will be. Given that most of what they try to pass off as 'new and unique control abilities' is just 'playing Pinball with the mobs, while mostly just looking busy' this is yet another in a long list of points against it.

[Furluge]

I would recommend just not replying to him anymore. Seriously, if you go back and read the thread you can see him repeat the same thing over and over again. In his mind every one of his opinions are set in stone fact, impervious to anyone elses insights or rebuttals. The items suck because he says so, even if you can point out where they don't. You can't change the game world he says so, even when you point out you can. It doesn't have roleplaying because he says so, even though you can point out there's more about roleplaying in 4e than 3e. He has the kind of faith in his beliefs that would make a suicide bomber envious, so do yourself a favor and just ignore him.

The world is full of self righteous ********. You can't be bothered to deal with all of them.

Just to repeat my earlier sentiment. SquelchHU is repeating the same sort of tune that was bellowed from the rooftops back in 2001 when 3e came out. 3e was going to flop, bomb, and it was going to all go away. That didn't happen, and 3e was a success. Now 4e, and those who dislike change are wailing the same tune once more, but despite their complaining 4e is here and it's been very successful as well. In 2015 or so when 5e comes out we'll have been looking back at 7 successful years of the 4e era, and some people are going to be wailing about how 5e ruins everything. Oh the cycle of history is just so entertaining.

[RictrasShard]

Finally, some things worth responding to.

Orbizard - Wizard with an Orb. He gets a bunch of stuff that stacks save penalties. He uses a power that stops the enemy from acting until they make a save. Except they can't do that, because the save isn't passable due to the stacked penalties.

See how even breaking the game turns out boring?

So? As I pointed out earlier, every edition has expoitable builds. Although your description of how to do so for this build is not exactly very detailed.

As for boring, that is a matter of opinion.


As for the Knockback feat, I just got out my Races of Stone book. You're wrong. There is no limit on the distance you can move the enemy, further since you add your Power Attack damage to the check the likelihood they will move quite far is very high indeed, since they move 5 feet + 5 feet for every 5 points they fail the check. There is however a weapon property called Knockback that is vastly inferior and does have a limit of 5 feet. But with the feat, you can expect enemies to move 20 feet, 30 feet, or even more. And moving enemies around does more in 3.5, because there the melee enemies need a full attack action to do anything that matters, so if your melee guy knocks the other melee guy away from someone such that everyone is at least 10 feet out of their reach, you can basically ignore them that round since all they can do is move and swing once.

According to the posts I saw on several different forums, the knockback feat can only move the target five feet. I do not know personally, though, as I do not have the book. Care to provide me with a link that shows differently?


Whereas in 4th, they just move action right back, and what have you done except dance the tango? They can still do everything they were going to do just as well as they can do it before, you haven't impeded them in the slightest.

Incorrect. First, the target will not be able to move until their next turn. In the meantime, they are subject to all the consequences I mentioned earlier. Next, it will not be able to move to the same spot, because your character is in that spot now. Furthermore, if the target is still conscious once its turn comes around again, if it wants to move, it will provoke an attack of opportunity from your character, as well as any of your teammates.


As for the costs to use it, one feat is obligatory for any and all characters. Just as there are obligatory feats for 4th edition characters, that everyone absolutely must have to not be gimped. The other is a feat tax, granted as there is no reason to bother moving people around if you cannot do it as a free effect on an attack so it's really only there to make the ability more expensive. Though it does add a +4 onto it, getting about 4 more feet.

Actually, as I pointed out earlier, it takes two feats to be able to select it. And the Tide of Iron ability, which is what you were comparing it to, does not require any feats to select. It is available to every fighter.


The size is a non factor, as there are multiple races with Powerful Build, and those that don't but are still Medium can still permanently become Large quite easily. That's what? 10 races that can be good at melee? More? I'm not even going to try to count up all the races that are either Medium humanoids, Medium with Powerful Build, or actually Large, but suffice it to say that is not a restriction.

I've just looked up Powerful Build, and now I see it is yet another feat, which has prerequisites of its own (Str 19+, Con 13+; Intimidate 4 ranks, base attack bonus +8), making it even more difficult to take the knockback feat if you aren't a large character.


By the way, Dungeonscape gives you the ability to do what amounts to good damage at the levels you get it, still stays a decent bonus even much later by knocking enemies into solid objects. And it applies each and every time you do that. That means even the 3.5 Fighter (or any other melee really, but it's fun to use the Fighter for these examples) is better at playing Pinball than any 4th edition character ever will be. Given that most of what they try to pass off as 'new and unique control abilities' is just 'playing Pinball with the mobs, while mostly just looking busy' this is yet another in a long list of points against it.

As I recall, one of your criticisms about 4E a while back is that you need extra books to get needed options. Notice in your recent posts, you are bringing up more and more 3.5 books to get the options you need to try to trump things in fourth? Anyways, of course 3.5 has a lot of stuff fourth doesn't have right now. That is because 3.5 has been around for years, and was the most supported game in rpg history. Fourth is still in its infancy, and still has much growth in its future.

I'm not sure who brought this up, but there is another criticism I want to address now. Somebody claimed that fourth edition characters have very little difference between each other. This is not correct. As an example, I'll present the party in my campaign.

Kava, dragonborn two-weapon ranger. She is the heavy hitter, with a 21 strength and variety of attacks. She excels in bringing the beatdown to our enemies. Very few foes can withstand her offense for long.

Keiton, tiefling scourge warlock. He is our go-to guy when facing enemies we have difficulty hitting. He has attacks that allow him to choose from various types of defenses to zero in on, so he will be able to find a weakness in almost any enemy.

Keldan, human great weapon fighter. He holds the line. With numerous abilities that focus on durability and recovery, he is very difficult to keep down. He charges into the thick of the most threatening foes, then keeps them busy while the party gets down to business.

Malorin, elven archer ranger. His 20 dexterity and other benefits give him deadly accuracy. When there is an enemy that absolutely needs to be killed now, that is his time to shine. He uses his most powerful attack, spends an action point, then uses his next most powerful attack, also using elven accuracy if needed. After this barrage, the target is usually dead or close to it.

Netara, eladrin artful dodger rogue. She specializes in moving around the battlefield and using attacks that hinder foes. Between her fey step and evasive abilities, many foes never get the chance to attack her. She is great at aiding teammates who are in trouble.

Travok, dwarven devoted cleric. He keeps the party going. Between his healing and his beneficial spells that increase our defenses, he has always been able to keep us in the fight. He is also good at surprise offense, getting in a key spell at a critical moment.

Notice how all these characters were made just using the options in the first Player's Handbook.

There is now one additional member: Fiona, shifter predator druid. She hasn't been with the group long enough to develop a niche role, but so far she seems to be a jack of all trades, changing her contributions as the situation demands.

There you have it, seven characters, none of them similar to the others.

[GramercyRiff]

Moving one person a few feet, maybe is not battlefield control.

A 3.5 Crusader with reach might be battlefield control if set up right, and possibly Enlarged.

A wide variety of spells are actual battlefield control, that actually inhibit the enemy's ability to fight back.

Now that I think about it, there is one 4th edition build that provides viable crowd control. Of course, most of the people arguing in favor of 4th edition choose to ignore the Orbizard and his unbreakable stunlocks as acknowledging the existence of that build opens up many other flaws. Like the Orbizard automatically winning every battle in there. It's also worth mentioning the key power used there is only level 1, if I'm recalling the build correctly. Because higher level abilities are not necessarily better either.

Oh and by the way, anyone with the Knockback feat has 'Tide of Iron', except better (enemies can be moved more than 5 feet, you get more than one attack a round starting around level 5-6) which means a 3.5 melee character with a single feat is doing better than anything 4th has to offer, despite being the red headed stepchild of the edition, and despite not even really trying. If you have Dungeonscape you can make this even better.

Crusaders are competent controllers. Some are downright awesome at it. Comparing a non caster to a caster is pointless, as casters are superior in every way in 3.5. Crusaders are the ultimate Big Stupid Fighter. They not only impede movement, they force enemies into lose/lose situations with Stand Still, Defensive Rebuke, Thicket of Blades, Robilar's Gambit, Combat Reflexes, and Defensive Sweep. Any enemy in a Crusaders threatened area is between the proverbial rock and a hard place. It's not hard at all to get a 30 ft. reach. It's not even that hard to get beyond this either. I'm not saying the most optimized Crusader is better at control than a Wizard is though. That'd be crazy talk.

4E Fighters, Paladins, and Wardens are built from the Crusader mold. They aren't as good at it as the Crusader, but Fighters and Wardens are sticky enough for the 4E system. As of the last time I played 4E, the Paladin was lacking overall, but Divine Power may have rectified that.

Orbizards are a problem in my opinion. They are so superior to the other Wizard types it's absurd. And yeah, the lock works with Sleep, a level 1 power, last I checked. I'm sure there's errata by now that brings them back to not imploding the game upon itself, a problem that exists with many builds in 3.5.

Yes, Knockback is greatness. Combined with the Dugeoncrasher ACF that you mentioned it becomes awesome. It's part of why Goliaths are worth their +1 LA. Heck, Goliaths are worth the LA even without it; they're that good (assuming buyoff is allowed).


Never to this extreme, and it's never tried to come right out and say it's not before. 'It's a roleplaying game', as if this were somehow inimical to making effective characters certainly has been claimed, but never one where the default assumption of a standard game is maximum optimization. You do not even encounter this when specifically playing with a DM that tries for this.

You don't need one round nova characters to be effective in 4E though. Those types of builds are the spearhead of maximum practical optimization. Novas have been a problem for some time though, 3.5 suffers from it greatly.


That's another thing the supporters don't like acknowledging, due to the relatively large bonuses handed out by the Warlord opening up several other cans of worms. The biggest one being that since there isn't any room for strategy or tactics, the best you can do is pile your numbers up and focus on a single tactic, which just lets you win by numerical superiority. Naturally getting large bonuses to whatever you do is a big part of this. Cue parties that are 4 carbon copies of build x, and 1 Warlord. There's a few options for build x, but they're going to all be the same, because there's no reason for them not to be.

In 3.5, you win by numerical/action superiority too. That's what optimization is all about. The carbon copies come from relative lack of content. It's still a problem though the last time I played 4E. Nova Rangers and Fighters with a Warlord could kill anything in the game without breaking a sweat in theory. These types of parties aren't necessary to be successful in 4E.


Can't find the link anymore

Consider me dubious. I just like proof is all.


It's also not too hard to see why they do not. Ignoring the various design flaws which make many people simply stay from it, and those few that do play it refuse to acknowledge any flaw because then they would have to acknowledge the many flaws, the way the book system itself is set up, you have little reason to buy many of them.

If you play class x you buy the core books, and maybe 1 or 2 others. The rest have nothing for you. At all.

Compare to 3.5, where you could at least find a little something in any book, even if it wasn't the right class. A melee class taking 'Lion Totem Barbarian' from Complete Champion (aimed at divine casters) for example.

Well with hybrid and MC there really are options for everyone in every book. Hybrids aren't out yet technically, and MC gets an unfair bad reputation by some. PMC was becoming more viable the last time I played 4E as well. Once that becomes worth doing, it'll open up more choices. PMC wasn't handled well at all in the beginning.


True. However my point is that they've became even more important, critical to you being able to do anything at all even, while the game claims they are less important. And that's just going to result in resentment from anyone gullible enough to believe they understand their own game. Which they clearly don't. Just look at Skill Challenges, take... how many is it now? I still don't know.

As for them giving out items, that's something I forgot to cover. See, depending on how you give out items your PCs can end up with 5 times less stuff or worse. That's massive. And what makes them suddenly end up with 20% or less of their mandatory Christmas Tree? Not picking out the exact optimal items for them and giving it to them. Which means if they don't know what's optimal or don't care, or you don't give them exactly what they want they quickly reach the 'hopelessly gimped' stage. Especially given how wealth scales. What was it, increase by a factor of 5 per 5 levels? It was something like that, where the endgame stuff is 7 and 8 digits.


I've read anecdotal evidence of this over on the 4E forums. I never encountered it though when I played. This could have been because there was always a Warlord around. However, not having a Warlord around seemed like a bad idea after reading the Warlord. To me and my group, magic items have always been an important part of the game, dating back to the AD&D days. That's why entire books are devoted to the stuff. It's hard for the me to buy the "hopelessly gimped" stage though from lack of magic items alone. Characters hopelessly suck from a multitude of factors.


This is not true at all. 4th is considerably more blatant about this, even going so far as to borrow some of the terminology. MMOs didn't even start going until... what? The 90s? That rules out 1st and 2nd. 3rd and 3.5 had a few things in common, but not enough to give an 'MMO on paper' argument any merit. 4th does.

When I say it doesn't hold water, I mean it's not a substantial argument. It's based more on one's perception than fact. The veracity isn't easy to prove to someone who doesn't see it. It's also pretty irrelevant as to why 4E sucks or succeeds as a system. Arguing about the efficacy of the system is substantial. Problems with the rules are more black and white and more easily defined, and can be proven with evidence. There are plenty of problems with some aspects of the 4E system, just as 3E has its problems. I just simply suggest using those elements to state your case.



You aren't doing that, so don't worry about it.

Even if I was doing that, I wouldn't be worrying about it. While I don't agree with every aspect of why you dislike 4E, some of the stuff you post are some of the problems I see with the game. However, I also see what's good and what works in 4E. For me personally, the good outweighs the bad. As a miniature skirmish combat game 4E succeeds overall. It isn't without flaws though.




I've just looked up Powerful Build, and now I see it is yet another feat, which has prerequisites of its own (Str 19+, Con 13+; Intimidate 4 ranks, base attack bonus +8), making it even more difficult to take the knockback feat if you aren't a large character.

You can get Powerful Build from being a Goliath as well, a race that has +1 LA, a drawback which doesn't hurt if LA buyout is allowed. That's getting the ability out of the box so to speak, making Goliath Dungeoncrashing Fighters very powerful by level 6-7 (of course leave Fighter at 6 and never return).

[SquelchHU]

So? As I pointed out earlier, every edition has expoitable builds. Although your description of how to do so for this build is not exactly very detailed.

As for boring, that is a matter of opinion.

Actually doing interesting things = fun. Just getting your numbers up high, but otherwise doing the same things you were at lower levels = not fun. That is a fact. Now if we were to get into what sorts of powers qualify as interesting you would be right. You'd have some who like interesting non combat stuff such as using various abilities to build a castle in a day, others who like waving their hand and just making the enemy drop dead on the spot due to powerful necromancy, and still others who like Evard's Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion.

And it's a given that every edition has exploitable builds. I said this myself. The point was to illustrate that 1: It could be broken, when one of their main marketing points was that it could not. 2: It isn't even fun to break since 'breaking' is just a matter of getting your numbers up and not a matter of actually doing anything different.


According to the posts I saw on several different forums, the knockback feat can only move the target five feet. I do not know personally, though, as I do not have the book. Care to provide me with a link that shows differently?

Again, there is a Knockback weapon property that is restricted to moving the target 5 feet. It is also resisted by a low, static DC Fortitude save so it is entirely useless. The feat has no such restrictions.

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/2335/observe.png


Incorrect. First, the target will not be able to move until their next turn. In the meantime, they are subject to all the consequences I mentioned earlier. Next, it will not be able to move to the same spot, because your character is in that spot now. Furthermore, if the target is still conscious once its turn comes around again, if it wants to move, it will provoke an attack of opportunity from your character, as well as any of your teammates.

Their goal is to move and attack x on their next action. They can still do that. You have not affected them in any way. Further when discussing the Fighter specifically, it is very important to keep in mind they are not a 'Defender'. They are actually halfway decent at hurting things by 4th edition standards, which means they are semi competent in absolute terms. But they can't protect anyone. The fact they are falsely labeled as if they could is yet another of many design flaws.


Actually, as I pointed out earlier, it takes two feats to be able to select it. And the Tide of Iron ability, which is what you were comparing it to, does not require any feats to select. It is available to every fighter.

False. My argument was that Knockback was superior to anything any 4th edition character had to offer at all (exception: Orbizards), and the fact Knockback comes from the 3.5 Fighter who is certainly NOT a character known for his array of tactical options is all the more galling - as in, even the 3.5 characters who got the worst lots in life can still do more to influence the outcome of combat than anything that 4th edition had to offer, despite 4th edition being marketed as more tactically deep. Which does make it superior to 'Tide of Iron' as well, but that was not all there was to it.

And if you want to talk about feats, that's 3 obligatory feats for the Fighter out of 19. 4th edition characters also have about 3 obligatory feats... out of how many?


I've just looked up Powerful Build, and now I see it is yet another feat, which has prerequisites of its own (Str 19+, Con 13+; Intimidate 4 ranks, base attack bonus +8), making it even more difficult to take the knockback feat if you aren't a large character.

First of all I would like to know where you're finding this as a feat. It is a racial ability that Goliaths get, Half Giants get, and there may be other races that get it.

If however it did exist as a feat (and I suspect you are merely looking at someone's homebrew creation) the only meaningful restriction there is the BAB 8 because it means you cannot get it until a minimum of level 8. Otherwise you'll meet the Strength requirement at level 1 with a +Str race and level 4 if not, the Con at level 1, and likely the skill ranks at level 1, since what else are you going to do with them?


As I recall, one of your criticisms about 4E a while back is that you need extra books to get needed options. Notice in your recent posts, you are bringing up more and more 3.5 books to get the options you need to try to trump things in fourth? Anyways, of course 3.5 has a lot of stuff fourth doesn't have right now. That is because 3.5 has been around for years, and was the most supported game in rpg history. Fourth is still in its infancy, and still has much growth in its future.

Wrong. As a separate point, I illustrated how one of the classes with the weakest crowd control and options in general can exceed everything every 4th edition character can do except for a single option.

The fact you also need extra books to get things like the Barbarian and the Sorcerer is certainly true, but again it is a separate point.

As for release dates, the 4th edition PHB has been out since 06/06/2008. Close to a year and a half. The other two core books came out on the same date. Now, how far along was 3.5 a year and a half in? Dungeonscape I believe was released late in the product cycle but were the races books and completes? I think not, though I can't find release date information for those things.


Crusaders are competent controllers. Some are downright awesome at it. Comparing a non caster to a caster is pointless, as casters are superior in every way in 3.5. Crusaders are the ultimate Big Stupid Fighter. They not only impede movement, they force enemies into lose/lose situations with Stand Still, Defensive Rebuke, Thicket of Blades, Robilar's Gambit, Combat Reflexes, and Defensive Sweep. Any enemy in a Crusaders threatened area is between the proverbial rock and a hard place. It's not hard at all to get a 30 ft. reach. It's not even that hard to get beyond this either. I'm not saying the most optimized Crusader is better at control than a Wizard is though. That'd be crazy talk.

My point was aimed to illustrate that even the 3.5 sorts were are known for getting the short end of the stick still get a better deal in the control department. The only reason 4th edition characters are being advocated as good at control is because... the book says they are.


4E Fighters, Paladins, and Wardens are built from the Crusader mold. They aren't as good at it as the Crusader, but Fighters and Wardens are sticky enough for the 4E system. As of the last time I played 4E, the Paladin was lacking overall, but Divine Power may have rectified that.

4th edition Fighters are not 'Defenders'. They can kill things half decently, but they can't protect anyone. Paladins just cry in a corner, because the enemy is always better off ignoring the mark and attacking whoever they want to anyways as the mark does not do enough.


Orbizards are a problem in my opinion. They are so superior to the other Wizard types it's absurd. And yeah, the lock works with Sleep, a level 1 power, last I checked. I'm sure there's errata by now that brings them back to not imploding the game upon itself, a problem that exists with many builds in 3.5.

Don't think that ever changed. The thing with Rangers getting lots of extra attacks was, but not the thing that makes the Wizard get an infinite loop. 'Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards' is still alive and well.


Yes, Knockback is greatness. Combined with the Dugeoncrasher ACF that you mentioned it becomes awesome. It's part of why Goliaths are worth their +1 LA. Heck, Goliaths are worth the LA even without it; they're that good (assuming buyoff is allowed).

That and non casters not getting that much per level, so losing one doesn't really hurt them much yeah.


You don't need one round nova characters to be effective in 4E though. Those types of builds are the spearhead of maximum practical optimization. Novas have been a problem for some time though, 3.5 suffers from it greatly.

And if you don't the combat drags its feet through round after round of unproductive.

You are wrong about 3.5 though. Completely and utterly. There is no such thing as 'novas' there at any level, because long before you've blown all your resources in one fight the fight is over. You do not even have enough actions to use them all, even if you felt like pointlessly spamming your abilities for some reason. Even at level 1, throw one spell and the battle is over. How many do you have? 3? 4? More than that? A level 1 Wizard can have as many as 5, though 3 or 4 is more typical. And I'm strictly talking 1st level spells here, not the cantrips.

There are 4 fights in a day. Looks like he's not novaing.

If you're using your magic more indirectly (say, by casting lots of buff spells) you're still not novaing, as you can easily go and zerg your way through a day's worth of encounters long before the buff timers expire. If you'd like you can go for 2, 3, or even more than that, because your awesomeness will persist for hours if not all day. Granted this alternative means of spell use isn't an option until at least mid levels as otherwise you don't have enough worthwhile buffs to pull it off, but it is an option.


In 3.5, you win by numerical/action superiority too. That's what optimization is all about. The carbon copies come from relative lack of content. It's still a problem though the last time I played 4E. Nova Rangers and Fighters with a Warlord could kill anything in the game without breaking a sweat in theory. These types of parties aren't necessary to be successful in 4E.

No, in 3.5 you win by doing something the enemy can't counter. Which is why charging builds can do thousands of damage a round, and still be the dead weight of the party because they never get a chance to actually close to melee range with the enemy to actually do that damage. The enemy has easily countered them before they did a thing.

Make a 3.5 enemy with hundreds of HP, saves in the 30s, spell resistance in the 40s and touch AC in the 40s, and you should not be surprised when it's been dismantled in a round or two by spells from casters in the high teens, without being especially bothered by the exceptionally high defenses. Hint: Characters in the high teens level wise fight much easier stuff than that.

This is why 3.5 casters are so amazing, they have so many options that it simply isn't possible for the enemy to counter everything they can do. The most they can hope for is to block some of it, or block the most common stuff (which is why you can expect every enemy past about level 13 to have something that blocks Death spells, which in turn just makes the spellcasters shift to indirect save or dies).

In 4th edition you just compare your numbers to their numbers, and if you're better you win and if they're better you lose.

Games devolve into a comparison of stats when there is no real strategy involved. And that's yet another reason why I compare it to other MMOs, as those are full of 'gear checks' to determine if your numbers are high enough to move on to the next grind yet.


Well with hybrid and MC there really are options for everyone in every book. Hybrids aren't out yet technically, and MC gets an unfair bad reputation by some. PMC was becoming more viable the last time I played 4E as well. Once that becomes worth doing, it'll open up more choices. PMC wasn't handled well at all in the beginning.

If that is supposed to be 'multiclass' of course it gets a bad reputation. Supposedly, powers of level x are equal to powers of level x. Of course this is false, but that still doesn't stop them from asking you to pay for things that are supposedly only equal to what you already would get for free at best. Not to mention that chances are the other power is associated with the wrong stat so you can't do anything with it.


I've read anecdotal evidence of this over on the 4E forums. I never encountered it though when I played. This could have been because there was always a Warlord around. However, not having a Warlord around seemed like a bad idea after reading the Warlord. To me and my group, magic items have always been an important part of the game, dating back to the AD&D days. That's why entire books are devoted to the stuff. It's hard for the me to buy the "hopelessly gimped" stage though from lack of magic items alone. Characters hopelessly suck from a multitude of factors.

Precisely, it's a no brainer to have a Warlord, choices made for you.


When I say it doesn't hold water, I mean it's not a substantial argument. It's based more on one's perception than fact. The veracity isn't easy to prove to someone who doesn't see it. It's also pretty irrelevant as to why 4E sucks or succeeds as a system. Arguing about the efficacy of the system is substantial. Problems with the rules are more black and white and more easily defined, and can be proven with evidence. There are plenty of problems with some aspects of the 4E system, just as 3E has its problems. I just simply suggest using those elements to state your case.

It is very relevant to illustrate how MMOs should be left to computers that can handle the processing for you to avoid a painfully slow pace. Unless you would like to argue that humans are capable of adjudicating the results of many combats in real time better than computers, this is not refutable or debatable in any way. It is also very relevant to illustrate how tabletop games should play to their strengths, just as computer games play to theirs. You do not attempt to sell bicycles by claiming they are faster than automobiles. Everyone knows you're lying right off. You sell bicycles by focusing on the positive aspects of riding a bike, such as getting in shape, saving money on gas, and being able to access places that a car cannot. Just as no sane person would attempt to make a bike directly compete with a car, the same is true for making tabletop games attempt to directly compete with MMOs. Instead they do so by focusing on the positive aspects such as much greater freedom to do what you want and such.


Even if I was doing that, I wouldn't be worrying about it. While I don't agree with every aspect of why you dislike 4E, some of the stuff you post are some of the problems I see with the game. However, I also see what's good and what works in 4E. For me personally, the good outweighs the bad. As a miniature skirmish combat game 4E succeeds overall. It isn't without flaws though.

That's the most galling thing about it actually. If a game chooses to focus on combat to the exclusion of all else, it should have some mind blowingly amazing combat to accurately reflect the amount of design work that went into it. Not miss, low damage, miss, miss, low damage, miss... Or alternately you stack your numbers up as high as possible with as many similar things as possible just to get bearable combat lengths, but it's still not interesting, just less grindy.


You can get Powerful Build from being a Goliath as well, a race that has +1 LA, a drawback which doesn't hurt if LA buyout is allowed. That's getting the ability out of the box so to speak, making Goliath Dungeoncrashing Fighters very powerful by level 6-7 (of course leave Fighter at 6 and never return).

I would leave at level 2, even though it does give something else at level 6.

At level 2 you get 4d6 + double Str when you slam enemies into walls.

At level 6 you get 8d6 + triple Str under the same conditions.

That's a gain of 4d6 + Str, less than the initial benefit and it requires 4 additional levels. 2 of which are dead and one of which offers you less than your first level of Fighter since all feats suffer from diminishing returns. Surely you can do something more useful with those 4 levels.

[Nyhm]

I am said fat man and can attest...that would be pretty quick :D

+1 rep.

[shenthing]

Now, I never played 1st ed, but I have played everything since 2nd. 2nd ed with skills and powers was by far my favorite. People complaining about WotC's recent need to generate income I guess never heard of things like OA or the numerous aracana books. Darksun, Planescape, Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Greyhawk anyone? What about all of the pure fantasy novels???
3.0 was interesting... it brought up a number of new and interesting game mechanics, but I had to learn to add and subtract like a normal person all over again. I think it is a shared opinion of MOST old school players that making the game more accessible and even-handed has taken a large amount of the fun out of table-topping. I like the idea of the fighter getting great melee prowess and the pure fun of the fighter/thief. I like having a mage cowering in the corner at level one and at level 20 transporting the entire battlefield to a hellish plane. 3.0 and 3.5 still had a similar feel of of party role and play-style, but got a little out of hand with some truly overpowered classes. 4.0 has made playing uniquely un-fun for me as a player. The one good thing I would say came from 4.0 are DM materials and, until they pulled it, the virtual table-top. While making D&D more accesible they have taken all the flavor out and have made it nearly impossible to run a 3-man campaign.
DDO should remain the black-sheep as how do you split up encounters? How do you balance store items with daily abilities? *** is up with BAB progression(or lack thereof) and how the heck do you nerf Wizards?? Yeah the spells they get are neato and the ability to sustain them is cool, but I really miss the old days of bonus spells and a huge spellbook in the company of a number of scroll cases.

[Xenus_Paradox]

Originally Posted by SquelchHU
Their goal is to move and attack x on their next action. They can still do that. You have not affected them in any way. Further when discussing the Fighter specifically, it is very important to keep in mind they are not a 'Defender'. They are actually halfway decent at hurting things by 4th edition standards, which means they are semi competent in absolute terms. But they can't protect anyone. The fact they are falsely labeled as if they could is yet another of many design flaws.

Enemy = E
Fighter = F
Target = T
Teammates = 1, 2, 3

.....2
..FE.3
.T.1

Fighter uses Tide of Iron, pushing enemy to the right. Enemy is now flanked on 4 sides by fighter and teammates 1, 2, and 3. Diagonal movement past enemies is not allowed, so enemy is locked in and unable to hit target with melee attacks. That took me a whole 30 seconds to think up.

Clearly the only failure here is your own imagination and tactical thinking ability.

Also, I would be more than happy to provide a copy of the character sheet for my Half-Orc Fighter, Tanglar, who can keep enemies prone, grappled, and taking automatic damage every round by level 12. Oh, and he can deal 60+ damage per attack, average, for 2 rounds, and 30+ all day by level 11.

False. My argument was that Knockback was superior to anything any 4th edition character had to offer at all (exception: Orbizards), and the fact Knockback comes from the 3.5 Fighter who is certainly NOT a character known for his array of tactical options is all the more galling - as in, even the 3.5 characters who got the worst lots in life can still do more to influence the outcome of combat than anything that 4th edition had to offer, despite 4th edition being marketed as more tactically deep. Which does make it superior to 'Tide of Iron' as well, but that was not all there was to it.

And if you want to talk about feats, that's 3 obligatory feats for the Fighter out of 19. 4th edition characters also have about 3 obligatory feats... out of how many?

4E characters get 1 feat at creation (2 for humans), then 1 at each even numbered level and each level that starts with a 1. Over 30 levels, that's 18, 1 less than a 3.5 fighter. And that's EVERY CHARACTER. Non-fighters in 3.5 get a paltry 7. Even if you shave off the last 10 levels in 4th, you're looking at 12, over 70% more.

Also, fighters in 3.5 have far more than 3 required feats. What about Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Improved Critical, Exotic Weapon Proficiency, Improved Initiative, Cleave, and a ton more from splatbooks?

Wrong. As a separate point, I illustrated how one of the classes with the weakest crowd control and options in general can exceed everything every 4th edition character can do except for a single option.

Bzzzt! Incorrect. Post your character sheet for this "weakest crowd control and options in general" and I will completely destroy it with a 4E build.

As for release dates, the 4th edition PHB has been out since 06/06/2008. Close to a year and a half. The other two core books came out on the same date. Now, how far along was 3.5 a year and a half in? Dungeonscape I believe was released late in the product cycle but were the races books and completes? I think not, though I can't find release date information for those things.

Let me Google that for you, champ. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=list+of+dungeons+and+dragons+rulebooks) Hey, look. 3rd result. Complete list, with publication dates and everything. Core books released July 2003, so a year and a half takes us to January of 2005. 3.5 books published between July 2003 and January 2005:

Complete Adventurer
Complete Arcane
Complete Divine
Complete Warrior
Draconomicon
Frostburn
Libris Mortis
Miniatures Handbook
Monster Manual 3
Races of Destiny
Races of Stone
Frostburn
Now that I've done your work for you, I expect you to put it to good use in making blatantly false statements and libeling other posters.

My point was aimed to illustrate that even the 3.5 sorts were are known for getting the short end of the stick still get a better deal in the control department. The only reason 4th edition characters are being advocated as good at control is because... the book says they are.

Wrong again, sport. I can roll up a 4th edition controller that will wipe the floor with your Crusader or whatever the hell you posted. I can do it with nothing but the Player's Handbook. I can do it without orblocking. Feel free to use the full range of 3.5 books though.


4th edition Fighters are not 'Defenders'. They can kill things half decently, but they can't protect anyone. Paladins just cry in a corner, because the enemy is always better off ignoring the mark and attacking whoever they want to anyways as the mark does not do enough.

Again, a ludicrous statement with nothing to back it up. Fighters can kill things more than half decently (and I thought you said that 4e characters can't kill anything because monsters have too many hit points... make up your mind,) AND they can protect EVERYONE. My half-orc can give multiple monsters -7 to hit his allies. Minus SEVEN. In 4th, that means that any level-appropriate non-solo monster ain't hitting unless it rolls 20. As to Paladins... I bet I can roll up a Paladin in 10 minutes that can do similar.

And if you don't the combat drags its feet through round after round of unproductive.

Unproductive what? If you're going to post blatant lies, then at least post blatant lies in complete sentences.

You are wrong about 3.5 though. Completely and utterly. There is no such thing as 'novas' there at any level, because long before you've blown all your resources in one fight the fight is over. You do not even have enough actions to use them all, even if you felt like pointlessly spamming your abilities for some reason. Even at level 1, throw one spell and the battle is over. How many do you have? 3? 4? More than that? A level 1 Wizard can have as many as 5, though 3 or 4 is more typical. And I'm strictly talking 1st level spells here, not the cantrips.

There are 4 fights in a day. Looks like he's not novaing.

Throw one spell and the fight is over. Gee, that sounds so much more EXCITING, TACTICAL, and IMAGINATIVE than 4th. Weren't you complaining about how 4th is so simple that anyone could write a script for it? Gosh, you get 4 1st-level spells, and according to you, there are 4 fights in a day. Memorize that spell 4 times, and you win 3.5!

Furthermore, show me in the DMG where it says there are 4 fights in a day. Page? Paragraph? Because I never saw it. In fact, every single 3.5 player I've ever spoken to have flat-out stated that you do 1 fight per day unless the DM puts time pressure on you. But since you apparently don't think DMs should be able to do anything that's not explicitly spelled out in the rules, I guess you're forced to let your players do an encounter and then sleep for 8 hours. Over and over.

No, in 3.5 you win by doing something the enemy can't counter. Which is why charging builds can do thousands of damage a round, and still be the dead weight of the party because they never get a chance to actually close to melee range with the enemy to actually do that damage. The enemy has easily countered them before they did a thing.


This is why 3.5 casters are so amazing, they have so many options that it simply isn't possible for the enemy to counter everything they can do. The most they can hope for is to block some of it, or block the most common stuff (which is why you can expect every enemy past about level 13 to have something that blocks Death spells, which in turn just makes the spellcasters shift to indirect save or dies).

In 4th edition you just compare your numbers to their numbers, and if you're better you win and if they're better you lose.

Again, you have nothing to back up this statement. In 3.5, you yourself admit that casters use save or die spells (your number beats your number = you win, their number beats your number = you lose) and then monsters get blanket immunity to those, so you shift to indirect save or dies (your number beats their number = you win, their number beats your number = you lose.) Please explain to me how this is different from 4th, assuming that 4th even works the way you claim, which you still haven't shown to be the case.

Games devolve into a comparison of stats when there is no real strategy involved. And that's yet another reason why I compare it to other MMOs, as those are full of 'gear checks' to determine if your numbers are high enough to move on to the next grind yet.

Again, you claim there is no strategy, yet multiple posters have debunked this falsehood multiple times. Also, your use of the term "other MMOs" implies that 4E is an MMO itself, which is demonstrably false. But falsehoods are par for the course with you.


Precisely, it's a no brainer to have a Warlord, choices made for you.

Unless you have a bard, or a shaman, or an artificer.

That's the most galling thing about it actually. If a game chooses to focus on combat to the exclusion of all else, it should have some mind blowingly amazing combat to accurately reflect the amount of design work that went into it. Not miss, low damage, miss, miss, low damage, miss...

Apparently you've never played 4th. It's more like miss but still deal low damage, hit for good damage, hit for great damage, miss for no damage, hit and kill.

Or alternately you stack your numbers up as high as possible with as many similar things as possible just to get bearable combat lengths, but it's still not interesting, just less grindy.

This is exactly what you do in 3.5.


Once again, you fail to prove anything while showing your complete lack of understanding of the subject under discussion.

[whysper]

I dunno why you bother to argue? Some like one, some the other and rational arguments cannot affect the situation either way.

I, personally, play 3.5 solely because of the design decisions in 4e that I feel "healing surge" best represents. There are many good things about 4e, starting from the fully planned 1-30 character arc: overall it could have been a far better system than 3.5. I think there are quite a few people in the same boat but until someone comes up with a comprehensive ruleset revision to correct some of the problems, it is 3.5 (and actually mainly GURPS) for me.

Edit: On the other hand, anyone who uses the term "fanbo{i,y}", even 'ironically', is someone whose opinion can freely be ignored.

[Roziel_Longblade]

Heros>GURPS

[Gaurelin]

No, no, no!
Please, no!

4e is a blatant money-grubbing scheme, but that is not even my biggest issue with it. Before anyone gets all uppity, too... I'll point out that I started with D&D over 25 years ago, and this is the first time I have not upgraded when a new edition came out. I liked 2e, loved the Player's Options additions to 2e (kinda 2.5e IMO), and adored 3/3.5e. However, with 4e (though it does have a few interesting concepts in it), they took what was a superb "world simulation" system, and made it a game that only really does one thing well, and that is combat. Basically, I kind of think of it as the Windows Vista of gaming... a new version that lokks pretty, but is dumbed-down in all the wrong places. I mean... as a DM, to be told that I should not give out any treasure whaich the chars are unable of using? As if the previous owners of the loot had been preparing for just those chars to wander by? Ludicrious! YMMV of course, but one of the appeals of this game to me is that is is not using 4e mechanics.

[shenthing]

Other than the money-grubbing thing +1 to Gaurelin.

[RictrasShard]

No, no, no!
Please, no!

4e is a blatant money-grubbing scheme,

No more than 3.5.


but that is not even my biggest issue with it. Before anyone gets all uppity, too... I'll point out that I started with D&D over 25 years ago, and this is the first time I have not upgraded when a new edition came out. I liked 2e, loved the Player's Options additions to 2e (kinda 2.5e IMO), and adored 3/3.5e. However, with 4e (though it does have a few interesting concepts in it), they took what was a superb "world simulation" system, and made it a game that only really does one thing well, and that is combat. Basically, I kind of think of it as the Windows Vista of gaming... a new version that lokks pretty, but is dumbed-down in all the wrong places. I mean... as a DM, to be told that I should not give out any treasure whaich the chars are unable of using? As if the previous owners of the loot had been preparing for just those chars to wander by? Ludicrious! YMMV of course, but one of the appeals of this game to me is that is is not using 4e mechanics.

Dungeons & Dragons, regardless of edition, is basically focused on two things, combat and role-playing. As long as the combat rules are decent, the players can handle the other. I've never seen a rulebook that could do the roleplaying for you.

[Junts]

I just opened Races of Stone


Knockback (general)

By putting your bulk behind the blow, you can push your enemy backward.

Prerequisites: Improved Bull Rush, Power Attack, size large or larger (Goliaths qualify by virtue of their Powerful Build racial feat)

Benefit: If you score a hit while using the power attack feat, you can make a free bull rush attempt against the foe you hit, applying the number by which you reduced your attack roll as a bonus on the opposed strength check (as well as the damage you deal). If you hit with a two handed weapon, you can apply double that number on the opposed check. Unlike standard bull rush attempts, knockback attempts do not provoke attacks of opportunity, and you don't move with the enemy you push back. Bull rush rules may be found on page 154 of the Player's Handbook.

Special: A fighter may select Knockback as one of his fighter bonus feats.


Knockback rules verbatim.

[SquelchHU]

No, no, no!
Please, no!

4e is a blatant money-grubbing scheme, but that is not even my biggest issue with it. Before anyone gets all uppity, too... I'll point out that I started with D&D over 25 years ago, and this is the first time I have not upgraded when a new edition came out. I liked 2e, loved the Player's Options additions to 2e (kinda 2.5e IMO), and adored 3/3.5e. However, with 4e (though it does have a few interesting concepts in it), they took what was a superb "world simulation" system, and made it a game that only really does one thing well, and that is combat. Basically, I kind of think of it as the Windows Vista of gaming... a new version that lokks pretty, but is dumbed-down in all the wrong places. I mean... as a DM, to be told that I should not give out any treasure whaich the chars are unable of using? As if the previous owners of the loot had been preparing for just those chars to wander by? Ludicrious! YMMV of course, but one of the appeals of this game to me is that is is not using 4e mechanics.

To be fair here, the reason why they're so adamant that you never, ever give the PCs anything less than the most optimal items for them at any given time is because they must have the most optimal items at any given time to perform at expected levels, and if they get anything less they are permanently losing cash.

This is also why all rituals are bad - you permanently lose each and every copper you sink into them, and don't even get a worthwhile effect for your money.

[RictrasShard]

To be fair here, the reason why they're so adamant that you never, ever give the PCs anything less than the most optimal items for them at any given time is because they must have the most optimal items at any given time to perform at expected levels,

No more so than in any other edition. In fact, I would say less so than in other editions.


This is also why all rituals are bad - you permanently lose each and every copper you sink into them, and don't even get a worthwhile effect for your money.

I have already pointed out that rituals are mostly the same spells that were in previous editions. Thus, if the spells aren't worthwhile in fourth, they weren't worthwhile in previous editions.

I've decided to test your claim about rituals, though. I have randomly chosen three of the 49 rituals in the first PHB, to see if these particular rituals are worthless.

First random roll:

Commune with Nature - For 140 gp, you can ask up to five questions (usually three, based on averages) about your immediate environs (terrain features, plants, minerals, bodies of water, creatures and other aspects). This can be invaluable if your character is short on rations or water, or to find out if there are any dangers, or to scout an area when you know you will be fighting something there.

Second random roll:

Drawmij's Instant Summons - For 500 gp, you can attune a weapon, implement or shield to yourself, so that you can summon it to your hands at a later point. It immediately struck me that this would be great for a character who knows they may be captured at some point, or for one who wants to get into a place where no weapons or implements or allowed, but will need such items once they are in there.

Third Random roll:

Magic Circle - For 100 gp, you can make a barrier to your choice of aberrant, elemental, fey, immortal, natural or shadow. You can choose all if you are willing to take a -5 penalty to your Arcana check. The use of this is obvious.

There you go, three random rituals, none of them worthless.

[Xenus_Paradox]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2006/20060905.jpg

[Roziel_Longblade]

Please tell me you dont need to spend that money each time you cast a ritual. That goes double for the one time divination rituals you listed above. Divination spells have always been the lesser cousin to spells with more direct effect. That is why some of the most useful divination spells were turned into 0lvl spells in 3e.

The idea that a GM should give out a certain type of magic items at a certain power lvl kind for characters of a corresponding lvl destroys a lot of what made D&D D&D. Different settings, some with higher lvls of magic and others with little or no magic at all.

...and that is the heart of the problem. Even if you argue that 4e is not broken, it just does not feel like D&D to many. When I opened the books it did not even look like D&D to me.

[Xenus_Paradox]

Please tell me you dont need to spend that money each time you cast a ritual. That goes double for the one time divination rituals you listed above. Divination spells have always been the lesser cousin to spells with more direct effect. That is why some of the most useful divination spells were turned into 0lvl spells in 3e.

As opposed to having to spend money on spell components for almost every spell in 3.5?

[Roziel_Longblade]

As opposed to having to spend money on spell components for almost every spell in 3.5?
Spell component pouch = as long as you have it assume you have the components. The only exception are components that have gp costs. If you can list 10 spells w/ gp costs, under spell lvl 6, I would be surprised.

[Krag]

Please tell me you dont need to spend that money each time you cast a ritual. That goes double for the one time divination rituals you listed above. Divination spells have always been the lesser cousin to spells with more direct effect. That is why some of the most useful divination spells were turned into 0lvl spells in 3e.

Power comes with a price. What's wrong with that?

[SquelchHU]

Rictras is flat out wrong as usual. And if he cannot see that taking a spell that was only decent at best to begin with, making the casting time prohibitively long, raising the price to some exceptionally high level for the level, and in many cases weakening the spell on top of that is not the same spell, we have nothing to talk about, ever.

Now to be fair here D&D has always broke if you tried to make it low magic. Roziel is wrong as well. But the tolerances have never been set to tight so that everyone must know exactly what they need and get it just to function at par either.

As for 3.5 spell components, most of them have a negligible cost. 5 gold will get you as many as you want, and this is easily afforded by level 1. There are a handful (less than 5%) that require a specific component. However these costs are much lower when compared to the amount of cash you will have at the time, the effects of these spells are much greater, and 3.5 has a built in allowance for consumables to the tune of 10% of your total wealth.

So if you're level 7 and you cast a level appropriate spell that requires a component (stoneskin) that's 250 gold, out of your allowance of approximately 1,900 before it starts biting into your actual wealth at all. And the stoneskin will absorb 70 damage which given that a level 7 wizard only has 40 is enough to nearly triple your lifespan. Certainly worth the cost since you're a priority target.

There's a few spells in there that do have high costs (the Symbols, Trap the Soul) but guess what? They never get used, except as SLAs which bypass the need for the cost. Why? Because they wouldn't be that good even if they were free, but adding a cost on them puts them in NPC only territory. If that.

[RictrasShard]

Rictras is flat out wrong as usual.
If I'm usually flat out wrong, why is it you've been unable to refute most of my arguments?

[Tallyn]

Mystic Theurge: Hybrid* cleric/wizard or cleric/sorcerer. Done.
Eldritch Knight: Hybrid fighter/wizard or fighter/sorcerer. Done.

*Hybrid characters are detailed in Dragon magazine and will be in the upcoming Player's Handbook 3 as well.

I was hoping for more of a challenge, to be honest. Like a specific character build.

So something in PHB3, that you can do in the core rulebooks of 3.5? Ok, maybe you can do it now (finally, after how long?), but it took them a long time, and I'm betting you still can't meet the flexibility of 3.5. Remember in 3.5 you could take 1 of every base class if you really wanted to. (I know some people that tried)

[Krag]

Rictras is flat out wrong as usual. And if he cannot see that taking a spell that was only decent at best to begin with, making the casting time prohibitively long, raising the price to some exceptionally high level for the level, and in many cases weakening the spell on top of that is not the same spell, we have nothing to talk about, ever.

No more easy button for casters. I can feel your pain, bro.


So something in PHB3, that you can do in the core rulebooks of 3.5? Ok, maybe you can do it now (finally, after how long?), but it took them a long time, and I'm betting you still can't meet the flexibility of 3.5. Remember in 3.5 you could take 1 of every base class if you really wanted to. (I know some people that tried)

That argument goes both ways. In 3.5 we have not seen any flexible and fun to play martial artist until DnD 4.0 playtest ToB.

[Xenus_Paradox]

So something in PHB3, that you can do in the core rulebooks of 3.5? Ok, maybe you can do it now (finally, after how long?), but it took them a long time, and I'm betting you still can't meet the flexibility of 3.5. Remember in 3.5 you could take 1 of every base class if you really wanted to. (I know some people that tried)

The difference here is that hybrid characters DON'T SUCK.

Show me a straight fighter/wizard Eldritch Knight that doesn't suck raw eggs compared to a pure wizard, or a straight cleric/wizard Mystic Theurge who can compare to a pure cleric or wizard.

Giving up 3 caster levels on both classes just so you can have more spells that you won't be able to burn through all of in a given encounter anyway is a sucker's move.

Meanwhile, 4th lets you cherry-pick powers from both classes as long as you have at least 1 from each per category (At-will, encounter, and daily.) This means you can pick Fighter powers for all but your highest level and pick up a wizard spell for your highest. You can't do that in 3.5- if you want 9th-level wizard spells, you have to take 17 levels of wizard/Prestige classes with Wizard casting advancement.

[VinceRN]

This thread is funny. Take it from someone who first played D&D with Elf as a Class, and has played every version published: Everything since AD&D (now called first edition), has been a downgrade, just a way for whoever owned it at the time to make players spend more money. (Original and Basic weren't really much good either).

Saying that 4th edition is so colossally stupid compared to 3.5 is silly. A lot of people like 4th because it's designed to be like an MMO. A lot of people like 3.5 because they don't know any thing existed before it I guess, but it's really no better.

As for the original idea of the thread, it'd be as easy to upgrade DDO to 4th Edition as it would be to update it to Traveller or Tope Secret, that is, impossible. It would be a whole different game.

There will one day be a 4th Edition MMO, I'm quite sure, but it won't be an upgrade of this game.

[Roziel_Longblade]

Now to be fair here D&D has always broke if you tried to make it low magic. Roziel is wrong as well. But the tolerances have never been set to tight so that everyone must know exactly what they need and get it just to function at par either.
I have run in some very fun low magic campaigns. If you have a good GM who knows how to fairly create a campaign world then mages (which is who I assume you are saying break low magic campaigns) are not broken, even at high lvls.

@Vince - 3.0 and 3.5 were RPG upgrades at its highest lvl. Masterfully done. This comes from someone that still breaks out AD&D from time to time.

[RictrasShard]

This thread is funny. Take it from someone who first played D&D with Elf as a Class, and has played every version published: Everything since AD&D (now called first edition), has been a downgrade, just a way for whoever owned it at the time to make players spend more money. (Original and Basic weren't really much good either).

As someone who has also played since those days, I disagree. Although first edition is still my favourite, I don't consider any other edition a downgrade. Even though I don't like 3.5, I still recognize it is a great game for some. Every edition has strengths and flaws.

[SquelchHU]

I have run in some very fun low magic campaigns. If you have a good GM who knows how to fairly create a campaign world then mages (which is who I assume you are saying break low magic campaigns) are not broken, even at high lvls.

@Vince - 3.0 and 3.5 were RPG upgrades at its highest lvl. Masterfully done. This comes from someone that still breaks out AD&D from time to time.

The problem is that D&D is flat out not designed for that. Beginning even at the low levels you're encountering supernatural foes, which must in turn be countered with supernatural abilities.

In a low magic world the non casters are not only stuck being confined to mundanity, they don't have all the shiny magic items they must have to keep up with the monsters.

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).

There are other systems that are designed for it, and those might work better. Or they might not. But regardless if it isn't a design goal at the beginning and it never was, it won't happen.

As for earlier editions, I have the first and second edition rulebooks as well. Third was most definitely a better game both because it ditched most of the DM vs player attitude inherent to first and second and because it improved and expanded the rules, instead of expecting you to pay for their work and then having to do most of the work anyways. At which point you could just make your own game and keep the hundred or more in your wallet. I also have the fourth edition books, and it is most definitely worse because it regresses many things back to first edition levels among other reasons that have already been detailed here. Was third perfect? Of course not. But it had fewer flaws than any of the others, and the flaws it did have were more easily fixed as they were less inherent to the system and therefore caused fewer problems elsewhere when corrected.

[RictrasShard]

The problem is that D&D is flat out not designed for that. Beginning even at the low levels you're encountering supernatural foes, which must in turn be countered with supernatural abilities.

Fourth edition doesn't have this problem. You can have a group consisting of nothing but fighters with no magic items, and they will still be able to contend with supernatural foes.

Also, there have been many successful low-magic campaigns since the early days of D&D.


As for earlier editions, I have the first and second edition rulebooks as well. Third was most definitely a better game both because it ditched most of the DM vs player attitude inherent to first and second

Please point out where in the first and second edition books you can find a DM vs. player attitude.


and because it improved and expanded the rules, instead of expecting you to pay for their work and then having to do most of the work anyways.

Expanded the rules? Most definitely. There are more rules in 3.5 than in all the other editions combined, it seems to me. Improved them? That depends on the the player's perspective. Myself, I favour rules that don't try to do everything for you. I prefer to play my character, not have the rules play it for me.


At which point you could just make your own game and keep the hundred or more in your wallet. I also have the fourth edition books, and it is most definitely worse because it regresses many things back to first edition levels among other reasons that have already been detailed here. Was third perfect? Of course not. But it had fewer flaws than any of the others, and the flaws it did have were more easily fixed as they were less inherent to the system and therefore caused fewer problems elsewhere when corrected.

In my opinion, which is apparently shared by many players based on the sales, the changes in fourth improve the game, rather than make it worse.

[Grim04]

They already have a MMO based on 4th edition rules... it's called WoW.

4th edition is a table-top WoW.

[Montrose]

The problem is that D&D is flat out not designed for that. Beginning even at the low levels you're encountering supernatural foes, which must in turn be countered with supernatural abilities.

In a low magic world the non casters are not only stuck being confined to mundanity, they don't have all the shiny magic items they must have to keep up with the monsters.

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).

There are other systems that are designed for it, and those might work better. Or they might not. But regardless if it isn't a design goal at the beginning and it never was, it won't happen.

As for earlier editions, I have the first and second edition rulebooks as well. Third was most definitely a better game both because it ditched most of the DM vs player attitude inherent to first and second and because it improved and expanded the rules, instead of expecting you to pay for their work and then having to do most of the work anyways. At which point you could just make your own game and keep the hundred or more in your wallet. I also have the fourth edition books, and it is most definitely worse because it regresses many things back to first edition levels among other reasons that have already been detailed here. Was third perfect? Of course not. But it had fewer flaws than any of the others, and the flaws it did have were more easily fixed as they were less inherent to the system and therefore caused fewer problems elsewhere when corrected.

I've successfully* run several low-magic high-darkness (gritty reality type darkness, not Ravenloft darkness) campaigns. Low-magic in that having a +1 sword was considered pretty darn good, xenophobia was high, petty politics were rampant.

As a GM, you get to choose what monsters that party is fighting. You know exactly what magic items they have. You can, therefore, easily control whether or not they encounter a creature that they can't beat (which is obviously not fun, unless it's a plot point).

Starting the characters off as scared level-0 farmers and letting them role-play into level 1 was fun for myself and my players. It may not be something that strikes you as fun, which is fine. It's also one of the strong points about the D&D game, it's extremely flexible and lets people play in different ways.

One of the things that is chafing me about dnd 4.0 is that it is *highly* templatized. This has positives and negatives which have already been debated ad naseum above, so I won't reiterate any of that. What I will say is that I have the *perception* of having less flexibility, and that matters to me.

Say what you will, but this rules set has a very different "feel" to it. Especially comparative to previous editions, it seems that combat has taken a much bigger role as opposed to advancing the plot through creative non-combat actions.

When I ran a campaign, fights were actually kind of rare. When you live in a low-magic world, fights are often short, brutal, and deadly. Not fighting is usually preferable, since you can't jog down to the corner store and get your buddy raised from the dead, or whip out your Ring of I Win and blast the monster to smithereens.

Now with 4e, combat is the framework upon which everything else is hung. If it doesn't relate to combat, it's pretty much an afterthought.

(Ex: I want my character to be a painter. There are no skills or mechanisms for determining how good of a painter I am, because it doesn't relate to combat. Yes, I can maybe use insight to determine how good I am at creating art, or dexterity to show how deft I am with a brush, but really at that point you are completely shoe-horning.)



(*successful in this case meaning that the game ran for 6+ months and the players and GM had a lot of fun)

[DakFrost]

Typical 4th ed. game...

10 year old #1 - I'm a striker! I will use a healing surge!

10 year old #2 - I'll play this card....it says "super punch!"

10 year old #3 - Hey! What super powers do defenders get? I want use my daily super power!

10 year old #4 - Are there pokemon in the monster manual or can I cast one as a super power?

[Tallyn]

The difference here is that hybrid characters DON'T SUCK.

Show me a straight fighter/wizard Eldritch Knight that doesn't suck raw eggs compared to a pure wizard, or a straight cleric/wizard Mystic Theurge who can compare to a pure cleric or wizard.

Giving up 3 caster levels on both classes just so you can have more spells that you won't be able to burn through all of in a given encounter anyway is a sucker's move.

Meanwhile, 4th lets you cherry-pick powers from both classes as long as you have at least 1 from each per category (At-will, encounter, and daily.) This means you can pick Fighter powers for all but your highest level and pick up a wizard spell for your highest. You can't do that in 3.5- if you want 9th-level wizard spells, you have to take 17 levels of wizard/Prestige classes with Wizard casting advancement.

If Mystic Theurges or Eldritch Knights in your 3.5 campaigns sucked, it was more the fault of the player than the system. I have played Mystic Theurges that were more powerful than any other character in the campaign due to their ability to cast a spell suited to nearly any situation.

Stop trying to cram down my throat that 4th Ed. is better than 3.5. I haven't stated that 4th Edition sucks, I have stated why I don't like the system. You can play 4th edition all you want, I won't be. I still state that 4th edition is less customizable then 3.5. I'm pretty sure most of the people who are in the 4th edition camp will even agree with this. You have your reasons for liking 4th ed, I have my reasons for not.

Btw, I'm not even really playing 3.5 right now, I'm playing Paizo's pathfinder system which I believe fixes quite a few of the problems that 3.5 had.

[SquelchHU]

Fourth edition doesn't have this problem. You can have a group consisting of nothing but fighters with no magic items, and they will still be able to contend with supernatural foes.

Also, there have been many successful low-magic campaigns since the early days of D&D.

Group of nothing but Fighters certainly. Group of anything with no magic items, absolutely not. Not unless you want to miss at least twice as often as you otherwise would and do even more pathetic damage when you actually manage to connect. And given that this is the Monk edition in that you don't have any actual abilities, but the game attempts to trick you into believing you do that's saying something.


Please point out where in the first and second edition books you can find a DM vs. player attitude.

In the interest of not making the reply to this section multiple pages in length it would be easier to list the ways it doesn't. But then I wouldn't be saying much at all so here are a few of many examples:

1st edition:

The entire section on playing a monster. It basically boils down to 'Let them, then kill them over and over and over until they get the point instead of just saying no, you cannot be a gold dragon.'

The entire section on psionics. If you are 'lucky' enough to randomly get psionic ability the DM is encouraged to send high level psionic creatures after them over and over until they die. Instead of just not rolling for psionic ability if you don't want psychics in the game.

The entire section on magic items. For every item that was useful there was another that appeared exactly like it until you put it on, then you died instantly. And there was no way to tell the difference unless you can read your DM's mind.

2nd edition:

Still has the magic item thing.

Has a lot more instant death scenarios, all over the place.

Has a lot more scenarios where the DM is encouraged to mess with the players without killing them, and it is strongly implied they should enjoy doing so.

Really, if you haven't noticed a DM vs player attitude in 1st and 2nd, I have to wonder if you've ever read the books. Where do you think "Rocks fall, everyone dies" came from? That's not hyperbole, it is a very real scenario in those editions.

And all that aside, 1st and 2nd are also more high magic than 3rd ever would be. There is a small but not insignificant chance that level 1 kobold you just killed has a gem worth a million gold. Oh and did I mention there are many enemies in there that flat out cannot be combatted unless you have a +x or better weapon?


Expanded the rules? Most definitely. There are more rules in 3.5 than in all the other editions combined, it seems to me. Improved them? That depends on the the player's perspective. Myself, I favour rules that don't try to do everything for you. I prefer to play my character, not have the rules play it for me.

The rules define what your character can do, not what they will do. Unless done wrong (see: 4th edition) in which case they do define what you will do.


In my opinion, which is apparently shared by many players based on the sales, the changes in fourth improve the game, rather than make it worse.

You mean the sales that at their best were equal to 3.5 at its worst in total, despite 4th releasing at least 4 times as many books per unit of time? Yes, a small minority likes MMOs on paper. What relevance does this have to anything?

I'll get to Montrose later.

Edit: Dak gets +1 rep for making me laugh. Also...


If Mystic Theurges or Eldritch Knights in your 3.5 campaigns sucked, it was more the fault of the player than the system. I have played Mystic Theurges that were more powerful than any other character in the campaign due to their ability to cast a spell suited to nearly any situation.

In which case either you were the only caster or the other casters had no idea what they were doing. A Mystic Theurge is in every way inferior to an arcane or a divine, and is most certainly inferior to an arcane and a divine. Eldritch Knights are a little different, mostly because plain martial classes are such jokes but even so Eldritch Knights do not make good gishes. Though a good gish is certainly a worthwhile character, despite being inferior to a plain arcane.


Btw, I'm not even really playing 3.5 right now, I'm playing Paizo's pathfinder system which I believe fixes quite a few of the problems that 3.5 had.

Stay away from the Summoner! (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=211361) You need to read that. It will change your life.

[RictrasShard]

Group of nothing but Fighters certainly. Group of anything with no magic items, absolutely not. Not unless you want to miss at least twice as often as you otherwise would and do even more pathetic damage when you actually manage to connect. And given that this is the Monk edition in that you don't have any actual abilities, but the game attempts to trick you into believing you do that's saying something.

The bonus to hit from magic weapons is helpful, but it is not the end-all be-all. The average character has bonuses from their combat level that exceed that of the weapon they are using, and that is before you add on their stat bonuses.


The entire section on playing a monster. It basically boils down to 'Let them, then kill them over and over and over until they get the point instead of just saying no, you cannot be a gold dragon.'

This section is on page 21 of the DM's Guide. It does not state anything close to what you are claiming.


The entire section on psionics. If you are 'lucky' enough to randomly get psionic ability the DM is encouraged to send high level psionic creatures after them over and over until they die. Instead of just not rolling for psionic ability if you don't want psychics in the game.

This section is on page 182 of the DM's Guide. It, also, does not state anything close to what you are claiming.


The entire section on magic items. For every item that was useful there was another that appeared exactly like it until you put it on, then you died instantly. And there was no way to tell the difference unless you can read your DM's mind.

There are scant few items that outright kill a character, and the beneficial magic items far outnumber the cursed ones. Also, there are numerous ways to get an idea of what the item does, including a first level magic-user spell.

As for your claims about second edition, I'm not going to dig out the books right now, but I assume they are about as accurate as your claims about first.


And all that aside, 1st and 2nd are also more high magic than 3rd ever would be. There is a small but not insignificant chance that level 1 kobold you just killed has a gem worth a million gold.

In order to get that million gp gem, you would have to roll 100 on a percentile, then seven consecutive ones on a d10. I would consider that a rather insignificant chance. Even then, advice sections in the DM's Guide encourage the ref to disregard rolls that give a ludicrous benefit or hindrance to the players.


Oh and did I mention there are many enemies in there that flat out cannot be combatted unless you have a +x or better weapon?

Just as there are in 3.5.


You mean the sales that at their best were equal to 3.5 at its worst in total, despite 4th releasing at least 4 times as many books per unit of time?

The best seller lists disagree with you.

[Xenus_Paradox]

They already have a MMO based on 4th edition rules... it's called WoW.

4th edition is a table-top WoW.


Typical 4th ed. game...

10 year old #1 - I'm a striker! I will use a healing surge!

10 year old #2 - I'll play this card....it says "super punch!"

10 year old #3 - Hey! What super powers do defenders get? I want use my daily super power!

10 year old #4 - Are there pokemon in the monster manual or can I cast one as a super power?

And once again, we see who the REAL immature kids are. And it ain't the 4e players.

[Xenus_Paradox]

In which case either you were the only caster or the other casters had no idea what they were doing. A Mystic Theurge is in every way inferior to an arcane or a divine, and is most certainly inferior to an arcane and a divine. Eldritch Knights are a little different, mostly because plain martial classes are such jokes but even so Eldritch Knights do not make good gishes. Though a good gish is certainly a worthwhile character, despite being inferior to a plain arcane.

And there you have it, straight from the most vocal 4e hater in this thread. Mystic Theurges and Eldritch Knights suck.

[Tallyn]

And there you have it, straight from the most vocal 4e hater in this thread. Mystic Theurges and Eldritch Knights suck.

Again, you either suck as a player (no offense, but Mystic Theurges don't suck) or you have the worst GM ever. The versatility offered by a Mystic Theurge is unmatched by any class in the game. It may just be a difference of play styles. Maybe you play high magic games, and your GM rather than make interpretations of the rules that make sense, goes straight by book numbers, forgoing the spirit for the letter of the law.

Sorry Xenus, I guess that wasn't directed towards you as much as Squelch.

I am going to have to agree with some of the 4th edition posters in the forum, that SquelchHU is just plain biased. He is like some of my old bad DMs that would read through a rule and find an interesting part that they could use, but not read through the whole thing and realize truly how it works. In his case, he is reading through something, making a assumption, then stating his assumptions as facts. I don't know why you think you're so smart, or why you think your opinion is so important. But these people enjoy playing 4th edition, I enjoy playing Pathfinder, and you enjoy 3.5.

Moderation, Squelch. You should try to look at things with an unbiased eye.

[Tallyn]

Stay away from the Summoner! (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=211361) You need to read that. It will change your life.

Are you really so arrogant that you think something you wrote on an internet forum about a game will change someone else's life? Get over yourself and realize people have different tastes and opinions.

[Xenus_Paradox]

Again, you either suck as a player (no offense, but Mystic Theurges don't suck) or you have the worst GM ever. The versatility offered by a Mystic Theurge is unmatched by any class in the game. It may just be a difference of play styles. Maybe you play high magic games, and your GM rather than make interpretations of the rules that make sense, goes straight by book numbers, forgoing the spirit for the letter of the law.

Losing 3 caster levels on both sides is a huge hit, especially at low levels. You'll constantly be 1-2 spell levels behind a pure-classed character, your spell penetration will be suboptimal, and your dispel checks will be gimped. The additional versatility of having 2 spell lists is negligible when you really aren't going to ever burn through all your spells for either class in a given encounter regardless.

Sorry Xenus, I guess that wasn't directed towards you as much as Squelch.

I am going to have to agree with some of the 4th edition posters in the forum, that SquelchHU is just plain biased. He is like some of my old bad DMs that would read through a rule and find an interesting part that they could use, but not read through the whole thing and realize truly how it works. In his case, he is reading through something, making a assumption, then stating his assumptions as facts. I don't know why you think you're so smart, or why you think your opinion is so important. But these people enjoy playing 4th edition, I enjoy playing Pathfinder, and you enjoy 3.5.

Moderation, Squelch. You should try to look at things with an unbiased eye.

I have to agree with you on this one. +1 rep.

[SquelchHU]

Are you really so arrogant that you think something you wrote on an internet forum about a game will change someone else's life? Get over yourself and realize people have different tastes and opinions.

Someone's sarcasm detector is broken. Come on now, could I have really been more over the top there?

To Rictras:

+6 to hit is 30% chance to hit. Given that your base chance to hit is considerably lower than 125% it does indeed lower your accuracy. In fact since your accuracy is around 60% you do lose half or more.

Identify is absolutely useless for catching the cursed items. See, if you had read the spell you would know it says something to the effect of 'To Identify an item, you must attempt to use it normally.' Well, cloaks are normally worn. It even cites this sort of thing as a specific example. And if that's a Cloak of Poison, you die. Identify or no Identify, you find out you got the poison cloak when someone drops dead from trying it on.

If the ref is discouraged from counting a crazy roll, why not just set the system up so the crazy roll can't happen?

3.5 does not have anything like that. 3.0 had DR (large number)/+x which is kind of the same thing but weaker. The closest 3.5 does to that is... DR/Magic. Wow. If for some reason you don't have a +1 weapon a 1st level spell will get you one for long enough to deal with it.

Now had you cited the various weapon special properties as an example you'd be onto something. But you didn't.

To Tallyn: Versatility? Lol. If you are a wizard OR a cleric your versatility is absolutely unmatched. If it isn't, you should reroll immediately, because losing multiple caster levels is nothing but a downgrade no matter what you get out of the deal, and there are not enough combat actions in the day to even use all those spells in the first place. Not to mention needing to split stats, etc which puts you further behind.

All you have done is trade your ability to take a level appropriate action for the ability to take an action several levels behind par. That's it. You don't suddenly get the ability to cast both at once. If you did, MT would not be such a trap. But it doesn't, so it is.

The sooner you understand that the better off you will be.

[Tallyn]

Someone's sarcasm detector is broken. Come on now, could I have really been more over the top there?

To Rictras:

+6 to hit is 30% chance to hit. Given that your base chance to hit is considerably lower than 125% it does indeed lower your accuracy. In fact since your accuracy is around 60% you do lose half or more.

Identify is absolutely useless for catching the cursed items. See, if you had read the spell you would know it says something to the effect of 'To Identify an item, you must attempt to use it normally.' Well, cloaks are normally worn. It even cites this sort of thing as a specific example. And if that's a Cloak of Poison, you die. Identify or no Identify, you find out you got the poison cloak when someone drops dead from trying it on.

If the ref is discouraged from counting a crazy roll, why not just set the system up so the crazy roll can't happen?

3.5 does not have anything like that. 3.0 had DR (large number)/+x which is kind of the same thing but weaker. The closest 3.5 does to that is... DR/Magic. Wow. If for some reason you don't have a +1 weapon a 1st level spell will get you one for long enough to deal with it.

Now had you cited the various weapon special properties as an example you'd be onto something. But you didn't.

To Tallyn: Versatility? Lol. If you are a wizard OR a cleric your versatility is absolutely unmatched. If it isn't, you should reroll immediately, because losing multiple caster levels is nothing but a downgrade no matter what you get out of the deal, and there are not enough combat actions in the day to even use all those spells in the first place. Not to mention needing to split stats, etc which puts you further behind.

All you have done is trade your ability to take a level appropriate action for the ability to take an action several levels behind par. That's it. You don't suddenly get the ability to cast both at once. If you did, MT would not be such a trap. But it doesn't, so it is.

The sooner you understand that the better off you will be.

It's all about maximizing things in pen and paper for you eh? I understand now. Pen and paper is about improving your character, but also about playing the role a character and the choices that character would make.

Anyways, I dont think you're worth listening to. Especially with your extremely arrogant and holier than thou tone. Goodbye.

[DireWolverine]

U callin' me fat, Ill? ;)

p.s. I think your IQ estimate is a bit high for that one as 4ed requires only a 51-70 IQ range to master...anyone higher quickly finds the nearest sharp objects to poke their own eyes out.

Hmm... last time I checked, my IQ was above 140. (Admittedly, it was one of those quick online tests.) I happen to love 4E, and I still have my eyes. Guess you're just plain wrong.

[Tallyn]

I can think of a good point too Xenus for 4th ed.. I have an old friend who plays it, and were he to come into town we'd probably make some characters and play it. From earlier examinations of the game, it seems character creation would be more streamlined. That way you can get into the game quicker. (I dont know, maybe this has changed with more rules out now?)

[DireWolverine]

Not to nitpick, but those classes were core in AD&D 1st edition. Monk too!

Barbarian was not core in 1st edition. Druid was, but it sucked. Bard was an optional, bizarre, multi-classed thingy that was so complicated to get that it never really worked out in practice.

Core classes (and subclasses) in 1st ed AD&D were Cleric (Druid), Fighter (Ranger, Paladin), Monk, Thief (Assassin), Magic-user (Illusionist). No others need apply.

(At one time, I could reference nearly every table or necessary page in my DMG from memory, given a vague description. I've since found better things to do with my grey matter. ;) )

EDIT: Forgot Monk. :o

[Tallyn]

Barbarian was not core in 1st edition. Druid was, but it sucked. Bard was an optional, bizarre, multi-classed thingy that was so complicated to get that it never really worked out in practice.

Core classes (and subclasses) in 1st ed AD&D were Cleric (Druid), Fighter (Ranger, Paladin), Thief (Assassin), Magic-user (Illusionist). No others need apply.

(At one time, I could reference nearly every table or necessary page in my DMG from memory, given a vague description. I've since found better things to do with my grey matter. ;) )

You're the third poster to point out my mistake. I admit it! I make mistakes. :D Barbarian wasn't in 1st ed core, came around later in Unearthed Arcana I believe.

[DireWolverine]

You're the third poster to point out my mistake. I admit it! I make mistakes. :D Barbarian wasn't in 1st ed core, came around later in Unearthed Arcana I believe.

Hadn't read that far, this was just the nth time I'd seen this misinformation posted and wanted to set the record straight. ;)

[Krag]

It's all about maximizing things in pen and paper for you eh? I understand now. Pen and paper is about improving your character, but also about playing the role a character and the choices that character would make.


Hold on.
Nobody implies that Mystic Theurge or Eldritch Knight were less fun to play. Initial statement was that they both are inferior to pure casters in terms of raw firepower. If you want to argue with that, don't mix roleplaying aspect in.

MT could become powerful at higher levels with some bizzare multiclass (i.e. Apostle of Peace or Ur-Priest) and via exploiting divine meta cheesyness but with the same amount of powergaming you can create wizard who shatters the earth with a move of his finger.

[Roziel_Longblade]

I am still trying to wrap my head around the idea that Mystic Thurge sucked. I have to disagree with that 100%. It is one of the most dominate PrCs in 3rd edition. I can only assume that you did not play one, or that you never really invested the time needed to play one to its potential.

The great thing about D&D is that campaigns vary and what may be good in one may be great in another. However I still have not seen a campaign world where Wiz dominates MysticT.

[Tallyn]

Hold on.
Nobody implies that Mystic Theurge or Eldritch Knight were less fun to play. Initial statement was that they both are inferior to pure casters in terms of raw firepower. If you want to argue with that, don't mix roleplaying aspect in.

MT could become powerful at higher levels with some bizzare multiclass (i.e. Apostle of Peace or Ur-Priest) and via exploiting divine meta cheesyness but with the same amount of powergaming you can create wizard who shatters the earth with a move of his finger.

And I stated that the Mystic Theurge (MT) could be very versatile... to which I was told that a pure would be more versatile. I cannot see how. A Pure would be more powerful in one or more aspects, but more versatile?

Wizard wants to heal... can't. MT can.

Cleric wants to haste/invis/displace... can't (in most cases). MT can.

I'm not saying that in a pure sense they are stronger, but I am saying that they can be as strong, or even moreso through judicious use of their versatility.

I was also trying to point out the fact that in pen and paper, it's not always about maximizing every single point to your maximum advantage. Ever hear of "optimizing the fun out of it". Well I find that adage applies sometimes when you try to maximize everything to its fullest... not for the sake of that it makes sense with the character, but just for the sake of having the most power you can possibly get.

Hope that made sense.

[Krag]

And I stated that the Mystic Theurge (MT) could be very versatile... to which I was told that a pure would be more versatile. I cannot see how. A Pure would be more powerful in one or more aspects, but more versatile?

Wizard wants to heal... can't. MT can.

Cleric wants to haste/invis/displace... can't (in most cases). MT can.

I'm not saying that in a pure sense they are stronger, but I am saying that they can be as strong, or even moreso through judicious use of their versatility.

More spell levels = more versatility. More divinations, more buffs, more summons, more croud control, more firepower.

MAD (Multi Attribute Dependance), lower spell levels, lower caster level, lower BAB = support only.



P.S. Yes, wizard can heal too, if you don't play core only.

[Tallyn]

More spell levels = more versatility. More divinations, more buffs, more summons, more croud control, more firepower.

MAD (Multi Attribute Dependance), lower spell levels, lower caster level, lower BAB = support only.



P.S. Yes, wizard can heal too, if you don't play core only.

A Mystic Theurge gets access to more divinations, more buffs, more summons, more crowd control and more firepower. You are correct that they have lower spells levels (Lower DCs), lower caster level (possibly lower damage dice on spells), and lower BAB. (Not sure I really care about BAB too much as a MT)

More spell levels does not necessarily equate to more versatility that an extra spell list could give you.

As an example:

10th Level Human Wizard (Using 32 point buy)
10 Str
12 Dex
12 Con
20 Int (18 Base, 2 level ups)
12 Wis
10 Cha

Would have access to level 5 Spells.
With his Int could cast: 6 1st, 5 2nd, 4 3rd, 4 4th, 3 5th level spells

3 Wizard/3 Cleric/4 Mystic Theurge Human (32 pt)
10 Str
12 Dex
12 Con
18 Int (16 +2 level ups)
16 Wis
10 Cha

Would have access to level 4 spells both arcane and divine.
With Int and Wis factored in could cast:
Arcane: 5 1st, 4 2nd, 3 3rd, 2 4th
Divine: 5+1 1st, 4 +1 2nd, 3+1 3rd, 2+1 4th


In addition the MT is able to cast from Divine list with some spells Wizards will not be able to replicate.

For pure power? I would go with the straight Wizard, but I think the MT would be more versatile.


Oh, and I would be extremely leery of allowing Wizard to have access to healing magics, it would blur the line between Divine and Arcane. MT you have to pay a price for it.

[Krag]

BAB is important for ranged touch spells like "Orb of..." from Complete Arcane. Very very useful since you don't need to care about saves your enemy might possess.

Let's compare odd levels.

11th level Wizard can cast 6-th level spells.
11th level MT is limited to first 4 levels.

MT misses 2 whole levels of spells that he will not be able to replicate. Those spells include Teleport, True Seeing, Greater Dispel, Greater Blink to name but a few.

You are correct that MT has more spells to choose from but you can't say he is more versatile based on this fact because the spells literally are on a different level.

[Roziel_Longblade]

MT does not lose caster lvls if it uses Practiced spell caster. MT does lose the top spell lvl but those few casts of 9th lvl spells are just that - few uses. If MTs really need a 9th lvl spell, they can buy a scroll.

I also have to say you guys have some mighty nice GMs who always let casters go back and get their nights rest to be at full power for every encounter.

[RictrasShard]

Someone's sarcasm detector is broken. Come on now, could I have really been more over the top there?

I, for one, find it difficult to tell.


To Rictras:

+6 to hit is 30% chance to hit. Given that your base chance to hit is considerably lower than 125% it does indeed lower your accuracy. In fact since your accuracy is around 60% you do lose half or more.

It is extremely rare for a character below the epic levels to have a +6 weapon. By that time, your character's BAB alone is at least +10, before you add on all the other bonuses a character of that level would have. If your character is lucky enough to have a +6 magic weapon at that point, the bonus is nice, but hardly essential.


Identify is absolutely useless for catching the cursed items. See, if you had read the spell you would know it says something to the effect of 'To Identify an item, you must attempt to use it normally.' Well, cloaks are normally worn. It even cites this sort of thing as a specific example. And if that's a Cloak of Poison, you die. Identify or no Identify, you find out you got the poison cloak when someone drops dead from trying it on.

I was partially mistaken there. It has been so long since I've seen a DM use the unaltered form of Identify, I'd forgotten it was like that. Most use a less harsh version of the spell that was in an old edition of Dragon magazine. As for the Cloak of Poisonousness, that is such a rare item that in 15 years of playing first edition, and scores of modules I have read, I have never seen it mentioned or put into use.

Of course, you are neglecting to notice that the Identify spell, as I pointed out, is just one way of many to figure out the properties of a magic item.

If the ref is discouraged from counting a crazy roll, why not just set the system up so the crazy roll can't happen?

Because it is pointless to add many pages of complicated charts and rules when you can just make a common sense suggestion. If the players don't have common sense, all those extra rules aren't going to do a thing to help their game.


3.5 does not have anything like that. 3.0 had DR (large number)/+x which is kind of the same thing but weaker. The closest 3.5 does to that is... DR/Magic. Wow. If for some reason you don't have a +1 weapon a 1st level spell will get you one for long enough to deal with it.

Now had you cited the various weapon special properties as an example you'd be onto something. But you didn't.

I looked through the 3.5 Monster Manual to find a monster that can only be hit by magic weapons. I didn't even make it past the A section before I found one, the Allip.

As you didn't try to refute the other parts of my post, I presume you concede the point.

[timberhick]

Anyway, the problem I see is that 3.5 (and some earlier versions) was complex for a reason, it was trying to create rules to emulate how your character would interact with the rpg world in a believable and consistent manner. 4E threw most of that out the window to create a simple combat and leveling system with little regard either for why anything worked the way it did or how that impacted things in non-combat situations or even doing non-standard things in combat.
Wha? believable and consistent manner you say of 3e?
Lets see fighter and ranger adventured together for 20 years going from level 1-20 together. After watching his ranger friend for those twenty years that fighter still could never figure out how the ranger did all of his amazing things like identifying plants, knowing which plants were edible, what a bear track looks like, and on and on.

Or how about this. Did you know the Fighter skill list is perfectly made to be a professional baby sitter or day care center worker.
The fighter’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Climb(so you can play on the monkey bars and jungle gym with the kids) , Craft (fingerpainting, macaroni faces), Handle Animal (feeding the fish, petting the occasional dog), Intimidate (need to get rid of those bullies or use your angry face on a baaad child), Jump (hopscotch), Ride (seesaw, piggyback ), and Swim (pooltime).




Why can't a player use a magic item of a higher level then he is?
Guess you never actually played the game then.


Why do players "forget" earlier powers once they reach a certain level? Why is there no attrition or any effect that can't be reset in a day at most? What happens if I want to craft something, make a magic item or research a ritual? These just seem to be a few things thrown out either in the name of simplicity or because the system designers didn't trust either the players or the DM.
You upgrade your abilities
why do you need one?
you craft something, why do you need to roll some dice in order to craft something?
You make a magic item, done
spenmd the oney on researching the ritual, done
These things are still there you just ignored them.

But just what does having Craft: Bowyer really do for a character? Does this skill somehow add depth? Does putting points into the skill somehow make the player a better player for doing so?

[timberhick]

I didnt say either of you were wrong for liking 4E but for me and the people I play with 4E isnt fun and all characters feel the same, I will say I am the youngest person playing with my group by half(I dont get to play much) but I enjoy 3.x and even more I like 1st and 2nd edtion, we are going to try the hackmaster soon and that looks pretty cool to me.

I haven't seen that and from my point of view it is completely the opposite.

[Soulken]

I haven't seen that and from my point of view it is completely the opposite.

I have no idea what you just said.

[DoctorWhofan]

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.


<<DEEP BREATHS>>

NO!


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.

+1 Rep Asp!


Oh boy. :eek: You have opened a real can of worms here. You might wish you had been more careful. :D;):p

Seriously, the DEVS have spoken on this and the players have too, but I am sure the discussion will resume. A quick search will reveal a ton of posts on it.

Happy hunting!

Dex was here. :cool:

Can ofWorms is an understatment


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.

Ye! INT score ROCKS! +1 REp to you!


And so it begins... ROFL. :D

Dex was here. :cool:

YUP!

[timberhick]

I have no idea what you just said.

you said "I didnt say either of you were wrong for liking 4E but for me and the people I play with 4E isnt fun and all characters feel the same"

For me it has been the opposite. When I played 3e the characters all felt the same. After playing a couple different campaigns/adventures people stuck to what worked in their minds and never varied far from those assumptions. No matter who I played with variety was minimal the characters ended up being very cookie-cutter. With 4e, so far, there are so many options for every character class that originality is still strong.

[Soulken]

you said "I didnt say either of you were wrong for liking 4E but for me and the people I play with 4E isnt fun and all characters feel the same"

For me it has been the opposite. When I played 3e the characters all felt the same. After playing a couple different campaigns/adventures people stuck to what worked in their minds and never varied far from those assumptions. No matter who I played with variety was minimal the characters ended up being very cookie-cutter. With 4e, so far, there are so many options for every character class that originality is still strong.
..
Thats the nice thing about gaming we can all chose what we like and have fun and thats what counts. v

[SquelchHU]

It's all about maximizing things in pen and paper for you eh? I understand now. Pen and paper is about improving your character, but also about playing the role a character and the choices that character would make.

Anyways, I dont think you're worth listening to. Especially with your extremely arrogant and holier than thou tone. Goodbye.

You argued that MT makes your character more versatile. I illustrated how it does the opposite. You don't get to hide behind some sort of 'real ROLEplayer' tag when you are proven wrong. Either the MT has 'unmatched versatility' and you are right, or there are one or more things that equal or exceed its versatility and you are wrong. You don't get it both ways and as the latter is true, you are wrong.


Hold on.
Nobody implies that Mystic Theurge or Eldritch Knight were less fun to play. Initial statement was that they both are inferior to pure casters in terms of raw firepower. If you want to argue with that, don't mix roleplaying aspect in.

MT could become powerful at higher levels with some bizzare multiclass (i.e. Apostle of Peace or Ur-Priest) and via exploiting divine meta cheesyness but with the same amount of powergaming you can create wizard who shatters the earth with a move of his finger.

At which point it would be the Apostle of Peace or the Ur-Priest salvaging the Mystic Theurge, which still does not reflect well upon the MT.


I am still trying to wrap my head around the idea that Mystic Thurge sucked. I have to disagree with that 100%. It is one of the most dominate PrCs in 3rd edition. I can only assume that you did not play one, or that you never really invested the time needed to play one to its potential.

The great thing about D&D is that campaigns vary and what may be good in one may be great in another. However I still have not seen a campaign world where Wiz dominates MysticT.

Then you either haven't seen a campaign world at all, or you have never seen a competent wizard. Just the fact the wizard will always have higher level spells beginning at level 3 makes him automatically both more powerful and more versatile.

You want to talk dominant PRCs? Here are some ones that actually boost the power of full casters instead of detracting from it:

Arcane:

Incantrix.
Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil.
Archmage (sometimes).
Master Specialist, in the right build.
Malconvoker if done right, for a summoner. This one is borderline.

Divine:

Planar Shepherd.
Radiant Servant of Pelor.
Church Inquisitor.
Planar Shepherd. Yes I did list it twice. It is that good.

I may be forgetting some, but MT does not even come close to making that list. It is a weak class that makes you and your character weak both.


And I stated that the Mystic Theurge (MT) could be very versatile... to which I was told that a pure would be more versatile. I cannot see how. A Pure would be more powerful in one or more aspects, but more versatile?

Wizard wants to heal... can't. MT can.

Cleric wants to haste/invis/displace... can't (in most cases). MT can.

I'm not saying that in a pure sense they are stronger, but I am saying that they can be as strong, or even moreso through judicious use of their versatility.

I was also trying to point out the fact that in pen and paper, it's not always about maximizing every single point to your maximum advantage. Ever hear of "optimizing the fun out of it". Well I find that adage applies sometimes when you try to maximize everything to its fullest... not for the sake of that it makes sense with the character, but just for the sake of having the most power you can possibly get.

Hope that made sense.

All full casters can cast off all other full caster's lists. That's why they're all about the same power. And it has nothing to do with not getting 9th level spells until level 20, if then.

I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out why, but here's a hint: It's all core only.

There are also two other core only ways a wizard can heal people, and this neat thing called domains that gives clerics a few spells from other lists.

Now I could just spell all this out for you, but given your lack of knowledge about 3.5 it would do you some good to do your research. It would also stop all the non sequitor arguments.


MT does not lose caster lvls if it uses Practiced spell caster. MT does lose the top spell lvl but those few casts of 9th lvl spells are just that - few uses. If MTs really need a 9th lvl spell, they can buy a scroll.

I also have to say you guys have some mighty nice GMs who always let casters go back and get their nights rest to be at full power for every encounter.

Practiced Spellcaster boosts your spell penetration and effects dependent on caster level. It does not actually give you any more spells. Though if your DM was following the rules wrong, it explains why you have came to such wrong conclusions.

Also, the DM doesn't have much of a choice at the matter. Practically, beginning at level 5 the party rests whenever it wants. Any enemy that does not have See Invisibility cannot even find them, and any enemy that does not have some form of Dispel has no chance of getting them out. Technically you could cast Rope Trick before level 5 but it would not last at least 9 hours (8 to rest + 1 to recover spells). Not that it matters, since by level 5 you can go through your requisite four combats a day and still have half power left if you're competent.

As for the scrolls, that's 3,625 gold or more each and every time you want to do it. Doesn't take long at all for that to eat up your allowance for consumable items and start gnawing on your permanent wealth. Given that 9th level spells flat out win combats, the answer to that is 'Often.' Well, unless they're named Meteor Swarm, in which case they just tickle something 10 levels lower than you.


It is extremely rare for a character below the epic levels to have a +6 weapon. By that time, your character's BAB alone is at least +10, before you add on all the other bonuses a character of that level would have. If your character is lucky enough to have a +6 magic weapon at that point, the bonus is nice, but hardly essential.

Way to take things out of context. 'Low accuracy' and '+6 weapons' are obvious references to 4th edition, which 'BAB' has no relevance to. In 3.5 you may very well have 125% accuracy so losing 30% of that may not slow you down. Losing the +6 damage would though.


I was partially mistaken there. It has been so long since I've seen a DM use the unaltered form of Identify, I'd forgotten it was like that. Most use a less harsh version of the spell that was in an old edition of Dragon magazine. As for the Cloak of Poisonousness, that is such a rare item that in 15 years of playing first edition, and scores of modules I have read, I have never seen it mentioned or put into use.

Of course, you are neglecting to notice that the Identify spell, as I pointed out, is just one way of many to figure out the properties of a magic item.

The Cloak of Poisonousness is one of many such examples, and then there's all the less severe curses. Since all the means of finding out what they do requires experimenting with them and thereby setting the curse off on yourself it is still a moot point.


I looked through the 3.5 Monster Manual to find a monster that can only be hit by magic weapons. I didn't even make it past the A section before I found one, the Allip.

As you didn't try to refute the other parts of my post, I presume you concede the point.

Assuming makes an ass out of you and me. Also, Magic Weapon.

Thanks for playing.

A few more things:

4th edition? Variety? Is today opposite day or something? Because I thought it was 'Americans become even more overweight, while everyone else laughs at us' day. You're lucky if the number of valid power options for any given level exceeds the number of slots you can take powers with, and you're lucky if you can grind the mobs down in under 45 minutes, even if you're doing everything you can to speed up combat.

'You must spread some reputation around before giving it to DoctorWhoFan again.'

[RictrasShard]

Way to take things out of context. 'Low accuracy' and '+6 weapons' are obvious references to 4th edition, which 'BAB' has no relevance to. In 3.5 you may very well have 125% accuracy so losing 30% of that may not slow you down. Losing the +6 damage would though.

I did not take things out of context, and I was talking about fourth edition. At twenty-first level, the beginning of the epic levels, a 4th character has a BAB of +10. BAB is a third edition term, you say? Yes, but people still use the term in fourth.

And the +6 damage is not that much of a loss when the character likely has a base damage bonus that is higher than that, and is rolling the weapon damage several times for each successful attack.


The Cloak of Poisonousness is one of many such examples, and then there's all the less severe curses. Since all the means of finding out what they do requires experimenting with them and thereby setting the curse off on yourself it is still a moot point.

The cloak is one of very few such examples, and there aren't all that many lesser cursed items either. And most of the means of finding out do not even require touching the item, let alone experimenting with them.


Assuming makes an ass out of you and me. Also, Magic Weapon.

And yet you still didn't try to refute my points. Looks like my presumption might be accurate.

Thanks for playing.


4th edition? Variety? Is today opposite day or something? Because I thought it was 'Americans become even more overweight, while everyone else laughs at us' day. You're lucky if the number of valid power options for any given level exceeds the number of slots you can take powers with, and you're lucky if you can grind the mobs down in under 45 minutes, even if you're doing everything you can to speed up combat.

Even skimming over the material will show you a large amount of variety. I demonstrated this variety some time ago with the description of my party.

[SquelchHU]

Which is still irrelevant, because enemy defenses progress at the same rate or a greater rate, which means you still go from 60% to 30% or so.

The +6 damage is a very big loss when it takes dozens of swings to kill the mob even with it. Know how people obsess over every little bit of DPS, even small gains like Prayer when fighting portals or Harry in the Shroud? Welcome to 4th edition. That's the whole game. Get your portal beaters.

Ignoring irrelevant tangential points, that are most likely you just pulling something out of nowhere.

The chance of getting a cursed item starts at 1 in 16 and goes up from there depending on what category it is. And there is in fact no way to tell the difference without trying it out, it even specifically tells you this. Given how many items get handed out, about the only way you're surviving is if you can read your DM's mind. Otherwise you will learn the hard way the Computer is not your friend.

Not to mention Identify has another flaw. 'You must Identify the item within 1 hour per caster level'. Don't have enough IDs today? Can't even try.

[Roziel_Longblade]

Praticed spell caster increases your caster lvl. That means it also increases the power of the spells you can cast. I never said it gave you more caster lvls.

If your DM lets you rest whenever and makes the campaign world stop while you rest then you might as well be playing a computer game. Stopping all the time should mean that the villian gets away, the portal gets opened or the outpost gets burned to the ground. A DM that cannot set the pace for an adventure does indeed give casters a big boost. That does not mean casters are that powerful, just that an overly permissive DM is running the campaign. (lol the keep buring down actually did happen in game, with us in the keep, in a rope trick.)

As for your invisiblity theory, wild animals dont track by sight. I doubt any of your arcanes would have been happy in many of the campaigns I have played in.

Back to 4e:
I do think the lack of rules for non-combat actions is a bit overblown. If you want to say you are master chef, you are a master chef. Most 3.5 games would not make you roll to make a meal anyway. It just is not that big a deal.

As others have said, it looks like 4e does strip away a lot of diversity and more importantly feels like a totally different game. 3e and previous editions were looking towards recreating realism, while 4e tries to recreate an MMO. They are starkly different. It makes for totally different game play, gaming styles and for a game that should have a different name than Dungeons & Dragons Fourth Edition.

[SquelchHU]

At which point you've blown two feats to get your spell pen up, and that's about it. How does this prove the MT is not a trap class again?

As stated before, a competent party at any level that can cast Rope Trick can go through their four fights a day and still have at least half power left. So they don't even need to hit the 'rest' button after every fight, though they can if they want. There are also numerous means to trivialize the time spent resting and to trivialize any sort of time limit as a caster. It is not unusual, or even that uncommon to complete 1, 2, or even 3 full levels worth of adventures within half of a single in game week. And that includes research time to learn what you're facing.

Wild animals still can't get in. They can track your scent up to the spot below the opening. They can't see the opening, they can't get in even if they somehow figured out to jump 5-30 feet straight up, and even if wild animals somehow have been randomly Awakened to figure it out... how many animals can threaten a level 5+ party? None of the normal ones can. Some of the dire variety might. But 'random encounter with dire awakened animal who jumps up into your safe sleeping area' is an obvious sign your DM is power tripping because he cannot handle players having actual options (and it is these sorts of people that made 4th edition) and the game changing fundamentally every few levels instead of 'same stuff, bigger numbers'.

There is a very small chance that someone will just randomly walk around with Detect Magic and See Invisibility to notice you at higher levels but by then you've upgraded to the Magnificent Mansion, which is a thousand miles or more away thanks to Teleport rendering it a moot point.

[timberhick]

Which is still irrelevant, because enemy defenses progress at the same rate or a greater rate, which means you still go from 60% to 30% or so.

The +6 damage is a very big loss when it takes dozens of swings to kill the mob even with it. Know how people obsess over every little bit of DPS, even small gains like Prayer when fighting portals or Harry in the Shroud? Welcome to 4th edition. That's the whole game. Get your portal beaters.

Ignoring irrelevant tangential points, that are most likely you just pulling something out of nowhere.

The chance of getting a cursed item starts at 1 in 16 and goes up from there depending on what category it is. And there is in fact no way to tell the difference without trying it out, it even specifically tells you this. Given how many items get handed out, about the only way you're surviving is if you can read your DM's mind. Otherwise you will learn the hard way the Computer is not your friend.

Not to mention Identify has another flaw. 'You must Identify the item within 1 hour per caster level'. Don't have enough IDs today? Can't even try.

As your blathering continues. We start to see just how much your really do not understand about both 3e and 4e. You make my reply to Soulken, "After playing a couple different campaigns/adventures people stuck to what worked in their minds and never varied far from those assumptions. No matter who I played with variety was minimal the characters ended up being very cookie-cutter." even more accurate.

One of the biggest problems 3e players have with 4e, is that 4e is based upon grouptimization and not optimization. That is something they have a hard time understanding for some reason.

I always get a chuckle when people say "3e and previous editions were looking towards recreating realism,"

[Roziel_Longblade]

At which point you've blown two feats to get your spell pen up, and that's about it. How does this prove the MT is not a trap class again?

As stated before, a competent party at any level that can cast Rope Trick can go through their four fights a day and still have at least half power left. Practiced Spellcaster is not just penetration, it is also spell damage, duration and area of effect. The only thing a MT misses are 9th lvl spells. 4 9th lvl arcane spells is a fair trade for 40 divine spells, Divine metamagic, and 2 sphere powers.

I have no idea where you get this 4 fights a day thing. If every game you play is that structured I think you may already be playing 4e.

[Xenus_Paradox]

Which is still irrelevant, because enemy defenses progress at the same rate or a greater rate, which means you still go from 60% to 30% or so.

The +6 damage is a very big loss when it takes dozens of swings to kill the mob even with it. Know how people obsess over every little bit of DPS, even small gains like Prayer when fighting portals or Harry in the Shroud? Welcome to 4th edition. That's the whole game. Get your portal beaters.

You keep claiming this, but it's absolutely false. I, unlike you, can actually demonstrate this mathematically.

A 1st-level standard brute monster has an average of 35 HP and an AC of 15.

An average first-level fighter has +7 to +9 to hit.

Assume a first-level fighter with 18 strength, wielding a non-magical greatsword, and taking the Weapon Expertise feat.

Finally, please bear in mind that the characters used in this example are far from optimal. A Swordmage paired up with an Avenger or Assassin would deal even more damage, just off the top of my head.
Greatsword: +3 proficiency bonus to hit, 1d10 damage
18 Strength: +4 to hit, +4 damage
Fighter Weapon Talent (2-handed weapons): +1 to hit
Weapon Expertise: +1 to hit

Total: +9 attack, 1d10+4 damage

Using the at-will power Reaping Strike, he deals Strength modifier damage even if he misses.

1-5: miss (4 damage)
6-19: normal hit (9.5 damage)
20: critical hit (14 damage)

Average damage per attack: 8.5
35 (average HP of a level 1 brute) divided by 8.5 (average damage from Reaping Strike) equals (rounded to the nearest tenth) 4.1 rounds for a fighter to drop a monster all by himself, using a nonmagical weapon.

In a standard party (1 leader, 1 striker, 1 defender, 1 controller, and 1 other), the monster will likely be flanked by the fighter and a rogue, ranger, or barbarian, giving a +2 bonus to hit. This means that simply by standing there, the teammate can increase the fighter's average damage output to 8.9, meaning it will drop in 3.9 rounds (rounding to the nearest tenth again). If the teammate actually attacks, well, let's assume an average rogue:

Dagger: +3 proficiency bonus to hit, 1d4 damage
18 Dexterity: +4 to hit, +4 damage
Rogue Weapon Talent: +1 to hit with daggers
Sneak Attack: +2d6 damage

Total: +8 to hit, 1d4+2d6+4 damage

Using the at-will power Piercing Strike, which is a Dexterity attack vs. the target's Reflex, and using the average Reflex of a standard level 1 brute, which is around 13, and factoring in combat advantage:

1-2: miss (0 damage)
3-19: hit (13.5 damage)
20: critical hit (15 damage)
12.225 damage

So, using the average damage per hit of both characters, we get 8.9 + 12.225 = 21.125 damage per round. In addition, the fighter places a mark on the target with each hit, giving it a -2 to hit with attacks that don't include the fighter as a target and allowing the fighter to make a free basic attack against the monster if it tries to move, with a bonus equal to his Wisdom modifier. If he hits, the monster doesn't get to move. Assuming a 12 wisdom (low for a 4E fighter), he will hit on anything but a 1. That monster is very likely not going to escape from the flank in the 1 round of movement it gets before the fighter and rogue kill it dead:

Round 1: both move into flank position, both make an attack for a total of 21.125 damage, which is over half its HP. Monster might try to move away, taking 9.25 (5% miss chance for 0 damage, 5% critical chance for 14 damage, 90% chance for 9.5 damage) more damage and losing its movement unless the fighter rolls a 1.

The monster can choose to shift instead, moving a single square, but the fighter STILL gets a free basic attack with combat advantage, and will only miss on a 1 or 2. Average damage is (10% miss for 0, 85% normal hit for 9.5, 5% critical hit for 14) 8.775 damage.

If the monster successfully moves away, it still takes an opportunity attack from the rogue. Hits on a 7 or better, critical on a 20, average damage 4.625 without Sneak Attack (since he only gets it once per turn).

Assuming it moves away without being hit by an opportunity attack from either player (which is unlikely to put it mildly), it has still taken over 20 points of damage from its 35. Unless it's extremely fast, one more attack will probably put it down.

This doesn't even consider the (very high) probability that the controller will hit it with an AoE spell.

[RictrasShard]

Which is still irrelevant, because enemy defenses progress at the same rate or a greater rate, which means you still go from 60% to 30% or so.

Sorry, being as +6 is lower than +10 or higher, your point is the irrelevant one.


The +6 damage is a very big loss when it takes dozens of swings to kill the mob even with it.

The +6 damage is not that important to someone who is averaging 3(W) damage plus their regular bonuses on those 'dozens of swings'.


Know how people obsess over every little bit of DPS, even small gains like Prayer when fighting portals or Harry in the Shroud? Welcome to 4th edition. That's the whole game. Get your portal beaters.

No, I don't know those people. The people I play with get through our encounters with tactics, not number crunching.


Ignoring irrelevant tangential points, that are most likely you just pulling something out of nowhere.

You mean those irrelevant points where you claimed the first edition rules encouraged the DM to kill the player characters, and I showed you to be wrong? Yeah, I don't blame you for ignoring those.


The chance of getting a cursed item starts at 1 in 16 and goes up from there depending on what category it is.

I'm curious as to how your arrived at those numbers.


And there is in fact no way to tell the difference without trying it out, it even specifically tells you this. Given how many items get handed out, about the only way you're surviving is if you can read your DM's mind. Otherwise you will learn the hard way the Computer is not your friend.

Please point out where it tells us that you cannot figure out the qualities of magical items. Here are some ways I know that can be used to identify them:

Know alignment - A number of magical items, cursed or not, have alignments.
Speak with dead - Cursed items are often found near the body of their last victim. Find out from the victim what went wrong.
Commune - Speaking with the agents of the gods is likely to reveal quite a bit.
Contact other plane - Other worldly beings know a fair amount as well.
Legend lore - Really, this spell was designed for just such scenarios.
Wish - The spell can do just about anything, after all.

I got this from just a quick skim over the spell lists from the PHB. If I had gone over other books, or psionic abilities, or even other magic items, the number of ways to determine the qualities of magical items would have increased that much more.

Heck, I can think of one way right off hand to help determine if an item is dangerous, and it doesn't take any kind of special abilities to do so. You just make a prisoner handle the item, and see if anything bad happens to him.


Not to mention Identify has another flaw. 'You must Identify the item within 1 hour per caster level'. Don't have enough IDs today? Can't even try.

Low level characters do not find magic items very often, so if they rely on identify spells, odds are they will have one available. Higher level characters who rely on identify (which aren't very common, as they will usually have many other resources at that point), will have numerous such spells available to them.

[SquelchHU]

Practiced Spellcaster is not just penetration, it is also spell damage, duration and area of effect. The only thing a MT misses are 9th lvl spells. 4 9th lvl arcane spells is a fair trade for 40 divine spells, Divine metamagic, and 2 sphere powers.

I have no idea where you get this 4 fights a day thing. If every game you play is that structured I think you may already be playing 4e.

If you are using damage spells you should reroll immediately.

Saying that the only thing they lose is 9th level spells is like saying the only thing that Ferrari is missing is the internal components. While true, it really underplays the importance of having your nice looking car actually crank up and go.

4 fights a day is the standard expected number of encounters. It is not as if competent parties need to climb up the Rope Trick after every fight. Though ones that waste lots of spellslots and combat actions doing minor damage might. Anyways. They can if they want, but they have no need to. Even after doing the standard 4, competent parties still have plenty of power left, and could easily do more. And that's just at level 5. At higher levels you can go even longer, such that buffing up and zerging through the dungeon in a very DDO like fashion is both possible and very common. And by the time they finally do retire they've done a dozen or more encounters, often of higher level and still have some power left but not much.

I'm skipping a bunch of irrelevant points.


I'm curious as to how your arrived at those numbers.

Looking at the tables for item generation.

As for items:

All cursed items are true neutral. You know, same as anything else not dedicated to anything. Nice try.

The item may or may not be near its last victim. Even if it is, does the victim necessarily know what happened? Most curses have a time delay.

Wish? You mean the iconic example of DM vs player in 1st and 2nd edition? Yeah, go right ahead and play lawyer with your DM.

Prisoners? Oh, you mean those things where all your henchmen and hirelings and whatever lose a lot of morale for you doing and will betray you at the worst possible time, even though it's a prisoner?

[RictrasShard]

Looking at the tables for item generation.

I rather doubt you counted the magic items in the DMG.


As for items:

All cursed items are true neutral. You know, same as anything else not dedicated to anything. Nice try.

Most cursed items don't have an alignment. Some do, however.


The item may or may not be near its last victim. Even if it is, does the victim necessarily know what happened? Most curses have a time delay.


I cannot think of a single cursed item that works on a time delay. All the ones that come to mind either enact their curse right away, or during usage of the item at some point.


Wish? You mean the iconic example of DM vs player in 1st and 2nd edition? Yeah, go right ahead and play lawyer with your DM.

Most DMs will not twist a wish when the player is merely trying to find out vital information. The ones that do, their campaigns usually are not worth participation.


Prisoners? Oh, you mean those things where all your henchmen and hirelings and whatever lose a lot of morale for you doing and will betray you at the worst possible time, even though it's a prisoner?

The section on henchmen is on pages 34 to 37 of the DMG. There is nothing in there that supports your claim.

[Krag]

Practiced Spellcaster is not just penetration, it is also spell damage, duration and area of effect. The only thing a MT misses are 9th lvl spells. 4 9th lvl arcane spells is a fair trade for 40 divine spells, Divine metamagic, and 2 sphere powers.

That does not changes the fact that you are wasting 2 feats on what any spellcaster gets for free.

[Roziel_Longblade]

Like I said earlier. If you have some standard number of encounters, or number that is any way predictable then you should be playing 4e. This 'standard' number of encounter thing is the exact opposite of every game I have ever played and sounds like EXTREME EASY mode.

Why would the DM give the players any idea about what to expect or how to expend resources? Squelch you are the 4e target audience. Embrace it :)

[Tilliak]

No 4e in DDO. 4e is nothing but Magic the Gathering made into a half-assed RPG with the D&D logo slapped onto it. The first thought that came to mind when reading the first page of 4e's Players Handbook was, "This doesn't feel like D&D..." and I checked the cover to make sure I wasn't reading some dumb collectible card game.

[Xenus_Paradox]

No 4e in DDO. 4e is nothing but Magic the Gathering made into a half-assed RPG with the D&D logo slapped onto it. The first thought that came to mind when reading the first page of 4e's Players Handbook was, "This doesn't feel like D&D..." and I checked the cover to make sure I wasn't reading some dumb collectible card game.

Really? What page is the Benalish Hero on? What's the mana cost for Magic Missile? What color spell is Bless?

[noinfo]

Really? What page is the Benalish Hero on? What's the mana cost for Magic Missile? What color spell is Bless?

Its in the expansion book :-p

Besides I got the same impression. Some 4ed ideas are good, the mechanics are simplistic, not that even 3rd edtions was great (though much improved in many areas) the having a class for everything approach it reverted to from first edition being one of my pet hates. The game is different enough that it does not particulary share any core elements with earlier editions besides names of things, but had they released it under a different name it really wouldn't have sold.

Maybe they should have named 4ed, the Jump the Shark edition.

[SquelchHU]

Ignoring anything that can be answered with a simple 'Nope, wrong again.'


I cannot think of a single cursed item that works on a time delay. All the ones that come to mind either enact their curse right away, or during usage of the item at some point.

They either act right way or appear to be useful item x by all tests until you enter into a stressful situation, at which point you learn you're swinging a -3 sword at the enemy, and that your armor attracts enemy attacks instead of repelling them. So yes, there is a time delay. The key word though is 'By all tests, the cursed item appears to be useful item x until you actually need it to be, then you're screwed.'


Most DMs will not twist a wish when the player is merely trying to find out vital information. The ones that do, their campaigns usually are not worth participation.

Your view must be lovely from there, or you would not keep hiding behind that straw man argument.


Like I said earlier. If you have some standard number of encounters, or number that is any way predictable then you should be playing 4e. This 'standard' number of encounter thing is the exact opposite of every game I have ever played and sounds like EXTREME EASY mode.

Why would the DM give the players any idea about what to expect or how to expend resources? Squelch you are the 4e target audience. Embrace it :)

So in addition to completely missing the point and going on an irrelevant tangent accordingly you have taken to outright lying in an attempt to assassinate my character?

Squelched. /double entendre

[whysper]

This thread is now just some of the most boring and poorly argumented rules-lawyering I have ever come across. Granted, that is a slight improvement but overall congrats for putting up the equivalent of a Patricia Cornwell guest-star strip of KoDT...

[RictrasShard]

Ignoring anything that can be answered with a simple 'Nope, wrong again.'

In other words, you are ignoring the things for which you can't think of a rebuttal.


They either act right way or appear to be useful item x by all tests until you enter into a stressful situation, at which point you learn you're swinging a -3 sword at the enemy, and that your armor attracts enemy attacks instead of repelling them. So yes, there is a time delay. The key word though is 'By all tests, the cursed item appears to be useful item x until you actually need it to be, then you're screwed.'

This is fairly much the same as what I stated, which means that since the curse activated at the time of use of the cursed item, it is not a time delay effect. This also means that the dead npc you are communicating with will know he was using the item when he died, and unless death was instant, will have some idea of what happened. If death was instant, that is useful information as well.


Your view must be lovely from there, or you would not keep hiding behind that straw man argument.

My view is fine, and there is no straw in sight. Unless the player is getting greedy with a wish, a good DM will not twist it to do irreparable harm to the character.

[timberhick]

So in addition to completely missing the point and going on an irrelevant tangent accordingly you have taken to outright lying in an attempt to assassinate my character?



pot meet kettle

[Tilliak]

My view is fine, and there is no straw in sight. Unless the player is getting greedy with a wish, a good DM will not twist it to do irreparable harm to the character.

Lol...snort...riiiight. Every DM on the face of the earth has waited for one slip of the tongue when a player has a wish for the last 30 years. A good DM ignores player whining when he brings the hammer down on what they wished for.

[irivan]

And i do not want anything to do with it.


Please maintain 3.5 architecture!!!