Where's the love, or at least tolerance?

271 posts / 0 new
Last post
I consider myself extremely fortunate that I was able to attend the D&D Experience, which I believe was the first hands-on unveiling of the 4E rules. My gaming group and I went there en masse, and for 6 bucks got to experience a 5 hour block of gaming and gain insight into some (admittedly few and limited) new rules.

Now, I went into it wanting to love 4E, and as a DM, hoping to glean as much information as possible. My players weren't as welcoming or enthusiastic as I, but curious nonetheless. By the end, to a person, they were sold.

What I'm wondering is why some on this board seem to be so staunchly anti-4E. Before the convention, before any great deal of information came out, there were those opposed to a 4th edition, for reasons which I'm certain were entirely valid to them. But this was without knowing much, if anything, about the new system.

Now people are criticizing the rules which have come out of the convention, either by release or extrapolation. And as said, the rules supplied were few, and left the impression that there were more to them than what we were given. It seemed they were playing their cards close to the vest, so to speak. For whatever reason.

Within the gaming community, only a fortunate minority were able to attend the D&D Experience. And there hasn't been nearly enough of the rules released to support the agrument of "dumbing down" the system or ruining the mechanics by changing them.

For those who fall into the anti-4E camp, please explain to me, preferably cooly and rationally, why you're opposed to the evolution of the game. Particularly if you haven't played the new system, and all you know of the rules is what little is out there. I'm not understanding the vitriol or the line-in-the-sand mentality. Thanx.
Those who dislike something are almost always more vocal than those who like something. It's a fact of life. Business smarts tells you that every customer who gets good service will tell 3 people about it, while every customer who gets bad service will tell 20.
For those who fall into the anti-4E camp, please explain to me, preferably cooly and rationally, why you're opposed to the evolution of the game. Particularly if you haven't played the new system, and all you know of the rules is what little is out there. I'm not understanding the vitriol or the line-in-the-sand mentality. Thanx.

A quick answer. When most of the rules which have been published are bad, how high is the chance that the rest of the rules are good?

Personally I am anti-43 because it looks like 4E doesn't want me as a player because it throws out nearly any form of a believable game world in favor for action movie stunts. Good for those who want to constantly do crazy over the top stunts, bad for those who want a believable game world and I am in the latter group.
Sure, 3E was not perfect, but it still tried.

A second, minor point is that WotC apparently has a very low opinion of their gamers. I don't consider myself exceptionally smart, but I must be because I understand the grapple and trip rules.
Short answer: 4th Ed is not for me.

4th Ed. is apparently designed with a quite specific style of play and type of fantasy in mind. Both have been promoted by 3rd Ed. books in the last couple of years, too. But personally, I prefer low-combat campaigns, were the characters are mundane people who can do only rather ordinary things, with the exception of low- to mid-level spells.
4th Ed. very strongly appears to me to be a system that is neither practical, nor meant to be used for such campaigns. That's it.

I still think 4th Ed. looks very cool and fun, but 4th Ed. is not my first choice when it comes to deciding which passtime I'll grant most of my time.
Lands of the Barbarian Kings Campaign Setting - http://barbaripedia.eu
My gaming group has never had to use minies. 4E seems to make that impossible now.
My gaming group has never had to use minies. 4E seems to make that impossible now.

In what way does 4th ed "seem to make that impossible"? Can you provide any examples? And how do you explain them using minies in the demo play last week? Actual evidence directly contradicts your statement.
Exactly how long is this horse corpse gonna get beaten?

You don't need minis.
You need a way to keep track of where people are.
Graph paper, pencil and eraser will do.
Heck regular notebook paper will do it you have either a steady hand or a ruler.

grid out a cork board and used thumbtacks.
print out maps and use fold up paper minis.

What ever.

If you played 3e, what ever you did to keep track of where everybody is will work just fine with 4e.

If you didn't play 3e, the merest amount of creativity can solve the problem without spending one red cent on a mini or battlemat.
In what way does 4th ed "seem to make that impossible"? Can you provide any examples? And how do you explain them using minies in the demo play last week? Actual evidence directly contradicts your statement.

I think you miss read my post. 4E seems to make it difficult to play without minies.
Personally I am anti-43 because it looks like 4E doesn't want me as a player because it throws out nearly any form of a believable game world in favor for action movie stunts.

Hyperbole like that is really very unconvincing, you know. Try to put forth your points in something like a logical, believable form if you wish to be taken seriously.
I think you miss read my post. 4E seems to make it difficult to play without minies.

Ah ok. Ambigous!
Exactly how long is this horse corpse gonna get beaten?

You don't need minis.
You need a way to keep track of where people are.
Graph paper, pencil and eraser will do.
Heck regular notebook paper will do it you have either a steady hand or a ruler.

grid out a cork board and used thumbtacks.
print out maps and use fold up paper minis.

What ever.

If you played 3e, what ever you did to keep track of where everybody is will work just fine with 4e.

If you didn't play 3e, the merest amount of creativity can solve the problem without spending one red cent on a mini or battlemat.

Well thats the point. No need for maps, thumbnails, toothpicks, poker chips or any other marker.

My issue, that which th OP wanted to know, not your response to my issue, is that movement/positioning/stategy has been built into each classes abilities.
Ah ok. Ambigous!

aye.
Marc: If that's your concern, then 4E (and 3E) are *less* dependent on minis than 1E and 2E were. In those, you not only needed to know where everyone was, but also which way they were facing. 3E and 4E have both disposed of the latter.
Yes, 4e is more reliant on positioning than 3.x or 2e. However, that is required for making the tactical game as interesting as it is - in fact, to replace the logistical game with the tactical game as the primary cause of success or failure in encounters.

For groups that don't like needing a positioning marker of some sort (my group used to use cut-up index cards), this is frustrating... but the goal was to design the best D&D possible, and to do that, a decision had to be made about whether or not to strongly support the use of minis. Once that choice was made, making the best D&D possible meant going all the way.
Hyperbole like that is really very unconvincing, you know. Try to put forth your points in something like a logical, believable form if you wish to be taken seriously.

Ok, when you don't want to read some of the many threads which are full of examples of this here is a short, incomplete list:

- 1-1-1 diagonals. Either everyone moves faster when walking in a specific direction in the game world or D&D worlds have a unimaginable, cuthulu like geometry
- When being struck down in combat you have a ~20% chance to simply stand up again in a quite good condition instead of being killed
- People, especially martial ones can only perform basic actions every 5 minutes
- You can't kill people while they sleep

In addition to this mechanical believability breakers there are also many design decisions which break the believability like
- PCs are not normal, hard trained members of their race but mutants with exceptional powers
- Every PC can do everything
- If it exists there must be a reasonable chance for the PCs to fight it (good for a diablo world, bad for a living one).

Whenever there is a decision between streamlining and believability 4E goes for streamlining (even when the speed gain by this is only minimal or nonexistant) which makes a good boardgame but a bad RPG.
Whenever there is a decision between streamlining and believability 4E goes for streamlining (even when the speed gain by this is only minimal or nonexistant) which makes a good boardgame but a bad RPG.

I actually feel the opposite. If I'm going to be paying for what is effectively just a set of rules to play make-believe to, I'd rather have those rules run as simply and elegantly as possible. I can add in the level of "realistic" stuff that I want, whether that be an auto-coup de grace on a sleeping target or a more complicated way of adjudicating diagonal movement.

Basically, give me a base system that runs like a dream and has minimal clunkiness, and let me decide what gets added on top.
While I understand the points of views of some anti-4e players, I wonder about the reasons behind their points of view. Arguing that D&D 4e isn't realistic is one thing, but arguing in favor of 3e as being somehow more realistic bugs me. The same as claiming that 4e is far too oriented towards combat.

There have been enough discussions of the system silliness in 3e so I won't repeat them here, but the too combat-oriented thing is something I should address. Consider a 20th level commoner. He is an ordinary guy. Grew up on a farm all his life. Tended cows. Raised crops. Sat around on the porch and chewed tobacco and watched the grass grow. Never had to pick up a sword or a spear or a crossbow. Maybe he knows how to swing a stick.

Now take a 1st level fighter. A trained soldier. An apprentice in the art of war. He can use any weapon used by any army in the world. He knows the art of using armor and riding horses. He can power-through an enemy and slay two in one blow. Chad the Fighter walks up to Jeb the Farmer and swings a longsword at him: a stunning blow! A critical strike, the best he can do! Let's see. . . maximized x2 damage. . . assume 18 STR. . . 24 hit points. . . Commoners get an average of 2.5 hp per level. . . assume 10 CON. . . that's only half his HP. And that's the MOST damage Chad can do.

Jeb the Farmer looks up at Chad and says, "I've still got plenty of hit points left, boya." Then he picks up a club (simple weapon) and beats the living daylights out of Chad the Fighter. Chad has an armor class of 20? Jeb still hits 50% of the time with his first attack and 25% of the time with his second. He is, literally, ten times more proficient in combat than Chad is.

All so that we can make Jeb the farmer the best damn Profession: Farmer in the world.

D&D is all about combat. If you want to create noncombatant characters and do interesting social roleplay, may I suggest SilCore or White Wolf? They do that so much better, if you ask me.
- People, especially martial ones can only perform basic actions every 5 minutes

No, they perform exploits: extraordinary attacks every 5 minutes. A basic attack can be done anytime: in fact attacks of oppotunity are only basic attacks. You can do a AoP with exploits.
- You can't kill people while they sleep.

Um, unconsciousness gives combat advantage + deal auto hit with melee (ranged gets a bonus). Wheher are you getting your info? This what unconscious means:

:Unconscious: All Melee Attacks against you are automatic critical hits, maximizing all dice.
All other attacks against you gain a +4 bonus; all enemies have Combat Advantage against you, making the bonus to Non-Melee Attacks +6. You cannot flank enemies or help an ally gain flanking.
You cannot make Opportunity Attacks or use immediate actions. On your turn you take no actions, but can still make saving throws.
"If you can't believe in yourself, believe in me who believes in you." and "Go beyond the impossible, and kick reason to the curb" Kamina, from Gurren Lagann
And as for this...

> - When being struck down in combat you have a ~20% chance to simply
> stand up again in a quite good condition instead of being killed

I take it you didn't watch Fellowship of the Ring? This is basically the Boromir death scene - in 4E terms, he rolled 20 twice in a row. (And he certainly wasn't in "quite good condition" each time he got back up.)
No, they perform exploits: extraordinary attacks every 5 minutes.

Like tripping other people....

Um, unconsciousness gives combat advantage + deal auto hit with melee (ranged gets a bonus). Wheher are you getting your info?{quote]

A CdG now apparently only does maximum damage (Enworld). Now how often will you have to hit a sleeping lvl 20 fighter till you kill him? And will this fighter stay asleep after you did hit him for 3-4 rounds?

I take it you didn't watch Fellowship of the Ring? This is basically the Boromir death scene - in 4E terms, he rolled 20 twice in a row. (And he certainly wasn't in "quite good condition" each time he got back up.)

When you roll a 20 in 4E you come back with 25% of your HP left. That is a bit more than what Boromir managed to do.
A...minor point is that WotC apparently has a very low opinion of their gamers. I don't consider myself exceptionally smart, but I must be because I understand the grapple and trip rules.

If you understand the grapple rules so perfectly, can you tell me how many grapple checks a dire bear get after successfully using his improved grab? I thought not. Nobody yet has a full perfect understanding of how natural attacks work when used in conjunction with grappling. Such a thing does not exist with the rules written the way they are (since it allows for any number of interpretations).

Every PC can do everything

Your statement is blatantly untrue. Things anyone should be able to attempt in real life (disarm, sunder, trip) have been relegated to fighters only.
You can. You just provoke an attack of opportunity.

Let's say, a character can attempt to do anything that you can do in the real world, even though many times they might fail.
While I understand the points of views of some anti-4e players, I wonder about the reasons behind their points of view. Arguing that D&D 4e isn't realistic is one thing, but arguing in favor of 3e as being somehow more realistic bugs me. The same as claiming that 4e is far too oriented towards combat.

3rd Ed. really isn't a particulary realistic system. But if you want to, you can play quite realistic games with this system. The thing is that in 4th Ed. you won't die anymore and can fight dragons at 1st level (over-exegerating a bit here). I wouldn't say that the 4th Ed. rules are more focused on combat than the combat rules are. But the designers seem to aim for players of combat-oriented adventures, but they do that since three or four years allready.
Lands of the Barbarian Kings Campaign Setting - http://barbaripedia.eu
Your statement is blatantly untrue. Things anyone should be able to attempt in real life (disarm, sunder, trip) have been relegated to fighters only.

This was rather aimed at PCs becoming good at every skill just because of the level. But yeah, only fighters being ablo to do what everyone can attempt is also such a "no believability" thing.
> When you roll a 20 in 4E you come back with 25% of your HP left. That is a
> bit more than what Boromir managed to do.

Arguing the mechanical details aside (How many hit points did Boromir have at 25% and how much damage was the orc archer doing?), the double-20 of that scene is nevertheless the *dramatic* effect which it is illustrating - and which 4E is aiming to make possible within the rules.

That ignores all of the other characters in fantasy who go down from a hit, but pull themselves up a few moments later to fight on. Again, the natural-20 covers those.
I'm loathe to bring up realism in DnD conversations, but I don't have a problem with trips and disarms becoming fighter maneuvers because of how difficult they are based on my experience in the real world.

In fencing, disarms were very difficult and rarely a viable way to win a fight. A common piece of wisdom from most weapon disciplines is to attack the person, not the weapon.

Trips are also pretty difficult. Both fighters are moving and the leg/foot is a small target. Also, no matter what weapon you're using, you have to lower it, creating a bad defensive opening.

This applies to regular fighting. I think there's always an exception for a cinematic trip, like taking down an AT-AT with a tow cable. But that was something even 3.5 left to the DM.

There's also a nice mechanic one could borrow from True20 using action points. Spend a point to gain access to a martial exploit for one round. It allows you to do the action when it might be really useful or the only option, but keeps everyone from being a trip master.
This was rather aimed at PCs becoming good at every skill just because of the level. But yeah, only fighters being ablo to do what everyone can attempt is also such a "no believability" thing.

Really? you honestly think that trying to trip a lion trying to take a swipe at you or a huge guy with an axe that's trying to lop your head off is something that everyone can attempt and have a good chance at succeeding?

There's a fundamental problem with tripping, sundering and disarming in 3.5e: either you exploit the mechanics to gain a horribly unfun advantage over opponents or you don't use them at all. Sure- once in a blue moon you'll probably disarm a guy you don't want to fight, but I think that's happened perhaps twice in the past two or three years for me. On the other hand, the tripping and/or sundering specialist can make fights just plain boring. Something needs to be done about them, frankly.

As for the complexity of grappling, please try not to see it as a threat to your intellect. The truth is that a simple solution is always better than a difficult one: if you had to buy a program to organize your computer files, and one took 1MB of memory while the other one took 60GB of memory and both accomplished the same task, the choice of which one to use would be pretty clear, wouldn't it? That's something that German boardgame designers learned almost fifteen years ago: make the rulebook slimmer and the decisions more plentiful and you'll have a more popular boardgame on your hands. It's a pity that so many people are so in love with complexity in RPGs. Complexity is not better, and it should never be a design goal. If grappling could be rewritten to be more intuitive, then it SHOULD be rewritten, simply because a more complex system is not desirable if you can accomplish the same goals with less.
This was rather aimed at PCs becoming good at every skill just because of the level. But yeah, only fighters being ablo to do what everyone can attempt is also such a "no believability" thing.

I think the 1/2 level being factored into untrained skills makes sense in an abstraction of life experience. Characters get a little bit better all-round skill wise as they gain experience, and I think this makes sense. Assuming equal Ability, it would take 10 extra levels to match-up against another character that trains in a specific skill, again I think this is reasonable. I don't consider 1/2 level to be "good" at a skill, especially considering the advantage that someone trained in the skill has.

As far as nobody being able to trip or disarm without a /encounter ability, I've not seen/heard anything from the Devs to indicate that this is true. I am pretty sure that some classes will be better at it than others, but that's not all that different from previous editions anyway.

Daegan
I think the 1/2 level being factored into untrained skills makes sense in an abstraction of life experience. Characters get a little bit better all-round skill wise as they gain experience, and I think this makes sense. Assuming equal Ability, it would take 10 extra levels to match-up against another character that trains in a specific skill, again I think this is reasonable. I don't consider 1/2 level to be "good" at a skill, especially considering the advantage that someone trained in the skill has.

At level 20 someone has +10 to every skill and that is quite good when considering that training only gives +5.
Also I wonder how, for example, beduin warrior got his +10 to swimming. Of course you can simply ignore those ranks but it is still a awkward situation when this warrior who by all logic can't swim is dropped into water. Technically he has 10 ranks in swimming.
As far as nobody being able to trip or disarm without a /encounter ability, I've not seen/heard anything from the Devs to indicate that this is true. I am pretty sure that some classes will be better at it than others, but that's not all that different from previous editions anyway.

Daegan

http://thetome.podbean.com/2008/03/01/the-tome-ep-46-perkinsgirard/

Making something like trip an encounter power (and one that only requires a single roll) as opposed to something everyone can do, that invariably requires someone to haul out the book, and that requires a batch of checks is an awkward tool to use. We can still have the battle scene in which I trip you or knock you off a bridge - but it moves more quickly, and the player who can trip knows exactly how it works and what his limitations are."

So not only can probably only the fighter trip enemies (and not the other melee classes like paladins and warlords), they can only do it (or even just try it) once in an encounter.
Re: Sunder, Trip, and Disarm.

Sure, anyone should be able to smash a sword with a hammer when it's on an anvil. Or kick someone's leg out from under him when he's not paying attention. Or pull a sword out of someone's hand.

But in D&D terms? I think of pulling them off in the heat of combat.

Someone's coming at you with a sword. You sidestep, trap his blade and snap it with the pommel of your warhammer.

Someone charges you with a sword. You bind his attack, hip-throw him to the ground, and stab him with your dagger.

Someone comes at you with a sword. You feint at his head, slip a hand between his forearms, twist just so, and send his blade flying.

Examples:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9G_d98ewZmM

PS: 00:25 has the best knockdown attack ever.
Also I wonder how, for example, beduin warrior got his +10 to swimming. Of course you can simply ignore those ranks but it is still a awkward situation when this warrior who by all logic can't swim is dropped into water. Technically he has 10 ranks in swimming.

Your logic is flawed. Their are plenty of people who have never been submerged in water before and can swim quite well right off the bat. That is not true of everybody, but it most certainly will be for nearly all heroic characters. What's more, ranks don't exist in 4E and someone who is not trained in Athletics still can't make use of the trained-only aspects of that skill.
A quick answer. When most of the rules which have been published are bad, how high is the chance that the rest of the rules are good?

True. Luckily, none of the rules I've seen for 4e are bad so I'm quite hopeful.
There will always be people who complain (myself included).

I'd be willing to bet that most of those complaining about v4, before it even comes out, are the same people who've been complaining about v3.5 in the other forums, and v3 before that, etc.

People don't like change, especially after they've spent a lot of money on books... BUT, just because I understand where they are coming from doesn't mean I agree with them.

No one if forcing anyone to switch to v4, if you don't like it, keep playing v3.5, or v3, or 2nd Edition, or AD&D, or D&D Expert Set if you prefer.

The reason D&D has flourished all these years is that it 'lives', and by that I mean that it changes over time to reflect the feedback from those that play the game... as it has.

The one thing that most people who complain about v4 don't seem to remember, is that the DM is the final arbiter (think I spelled that correctly) in any game.

If you don't like the 1-1-1 diagonal move... change it.
If you want there to be a way to insta-kill a sleeping target... do it.
If you want every class to be able to use an ability that is only given to one... make that change in your game.

And just because the rules say you can do something, doesn't mean that the DM must abide by it (just because the rules say you have a -4 to hit something in a given case, doesn't mean you can't rule it outright impossible, or change the penalty).

Back in AD&D there was no rule saying what happens if a non-rogue sneaks up on someone and cuts their throat from behind... but the game survived. Some DMs ruled that you only did normal damage, some DMs ruled you did more, some DMs ruled it an insta-kill, others took into account the level difference between the attacker and defender...

I, too, have used 20th level commoners for important NPCs that I didn't want the party to kill off, I've also used 3rd level commoners who I gave large bonuses to one particular skill, because I wanted them REALLY good at making one type of item, but didn't want them to have the hp from levels.

If you don't want to use miniatures... don't. If you can keep track of where everyone is in your head, then do it. I played for the first 2 years without once using miniatures, granted it made things more difficult and resulted in more arguments from players who didn't like that you ruled them too far away to reach something, but it worked.

You're the DM, it is up to you to mold the rules into whatever form you want for your game. That's what makes D&D a great game, the freedom to customize it any way you want.

If you look at the people who are protesting the loudest, they are the same people who complained the loudest in the v3.5 forums as well...
At level 20 someone has +10 to every skill and that is quite good when considering that training only gives +5.
Also I wonder how, for example, beduin warrior got his +10 to swimming. Of course you can simply ignore those ranks but it is still a awkward situation when this warrior who by all logic can't swim is dropped into water. Technically he has 10 ranks in swimming.

So by your example, this 20th level beduin warrior has never, in all his travels, been in water (possible, I guess) and would be killed outright by a swim in slightly rough water even without his armor (again possible, I guess, but a little anti-climactic). Just as a side note, I think it is even more a unlikely that a character that has reached the height of his ability could be put down so easily.

He doesn't have 10 Ranks in swim, he has a +10 modifier to the roll based on his level... Ranks in 3e represented specific focus or training. The 1/2 level modifier just represents life experience.
At level 20 someone has +10 to every skill and that is quite good when considering that training only gives +5.
Also I wonder how, for example, beduin warrior got his +10 to swimming. Of course you can simply ignore those ranks but it is still a awkward situation when this warrior who by all logic can't swim is dropped into water. Technically he has 10 ranks in swimming.

So your argument against 4e is that a particular example of how skills are handled fails to encompass all possible geographical and cultural differences? I gotta say, man, that if that's the best criticism you can offer I think we're in a for a great game.
I actually feel the opposite. If I'm going to be paying for what is effectively just a set of rules to play make-believe to, I'd rather have those rules run as simply and elegantly as possible. I can add in the level of "realistic" stuff that I want, whether that be an auto-coup de grace on a sleeping target or a more complicated way of adjudicating diagonal movement.

Basically, give me a base system that runs like a dream and has minimal clunkiness, and let me decide what gets added on top.

I personally have to agree with the 'system ease/less clunky' comment. The devs efforts toward streamlining are just that, an effort to reduce clunkiness, and from what little I saw of the rules in action at D&D Exp, they seemed to have met their objective. Yes, the measurement across the diagonal of a square is 1.4 times the side of said square, but I'll gladly part with this bit of realism in my game if the alternative is faster and easier. Taking a double move diagonally in 3E was excruciating, and the same can be said for any number of the rules. If 4E halves the time spent flipping through the books, I'll consider it money well spent.

Even with the information streaming out of D&D Exp, we still know precious few rules, and even those I suspect, not in whole. The 1st level characters provided were designed to allow us to jump in and get a feel of the new rules. I wouldn't be surprised if those characters were incomplete when compared to another 1st level character generated from the PHB. And the rules don't exist in a vacuum. Only time, and the release of the core books, will tell how well they all mesh. From what little I experienced, they seemed to work quite well together, the game seemed well balanced.

The new rules may very well be sacrificing realism for simplicity, but ultimately D&D is a roleplaying game. Anything which is designed to grant more time to the roleplaying aspect and less time futzing around with the mechanics should at least be considered, if not embraced.

However, I realize that not everyone will adopt 4E, which brings me to another question. For those of you who plan on sticking with 3.5, do you feel your games will suffer with the release of the new edition? Specifically, there is an enormous amount of materiel out there which has already been released, and which, in all probability, will continue to be released by third party publishers. Do you feel as if the rug has been pulled from under you, or are you confident that you can continue on without missing a beat?
So your argument against 4e is that a particular example of how skills are handled fails to encompass all possible geographical and cultural differences? I gotta say, man, that if that's the best criticism you can offer I think we're in a for a great game.

Actually it is more like: It is impossible to make a character in 4E whi can't do something which leads to that every PC is a unrealistic superhero and no real (demi) human with strengths and weaknesses.
But I guess this doesn't really interest you because you will have a hard time to make fun of that. Its easer when you continue to make up stuff.
Euclidean geometry is for math majors.

Will I let my PC's exploit this change to travel faster in a diagonal direction overland towards Place X? No, because thats dumb.

However, combat is a beast of a different color, and there's a few different ways to rationlize stuff like that. Move diagonal NW then NE? Maybe they moved in a circle, circumventing most of that FIVE FOOT SPACE which a single square represents, so that it comes out in the wash?

As for trip and disarm: Have you PLAYED at a table with a fighter using a Spiked Chain and Combat reflexes with the Wal-Mart Edition Mithril Chain Shirt and other Rogue oriented gear? When a single player can lock down six or more monsters indefnitely, I have problems with that, especially given the Single Monster bias of 3.X. Disarm, less so, because I generally run my players against monsters that don't have weapons (for precisely the reason that it would be exploitable).
Actually it is more like: It is impossible to make a character in 4E whi can't do something which leads to that every PC is a unrealistic superhero and no real (demi) human with strengths and weaknesses.
But I guess this doesn't really interest you because you will have a hard time to make fun of that. Its easer when you continue to make up stuff.

Incorrect Again Derren. Extrapolating from Saga (IIRC), trained lets you do more with a skill than just the basics. And, I am also guessing that some skills might be trained only. We'll see though.
For those who fall into the anti-4E camp, please explain to me, preferably cooly and rationally, why you're opposed to the evolution of the game. Particularly if you haven't played the new system, and all you know of the rules is what little is out there. I'm not understanding the vitriol or the line-in-the-sand mentality. Thanx.

I was neutral but curious when first arriving in the forum about three months ago. Neutral because with my gaming group we would not be changing to anything else for about 5 years. Big campaign going on.

When the 4ED was first annouced it was only going to fix a few things (grappling).
I liked what little was released about the game on the forum, and the two preview books. (I didn't buy them.) But I could never be sure about anything. No info was being released even after the January deadline for finalizing the book for the printers came along.
Most of the info- we did get was not Crunchy rules, it was the massive changes to history, world, ghods, and the look of monsters. These changes are systemic and seemed only to have occured for the sake for change.
This is a important part of the Feel of D&D. Quickling and Troglodyte art is especially ugly and strange. Hindsight, this was bad but I chose to wait for the release (look to buy the PHB) while continuing to watch the Forum.

DDFX was a fload of infromation. This release filled me much warm fuzzies. But it wore off as the I figure out things about the crunch. I really feel that they have thrown out most of the fluff and all(95%) the of the mechanics, to rebuild the game from the round up, under the direction of people who IMHO are not experienced enough to do the job.
This is the second Feel of D&D that has been lost.
Strangely is was what DDFX gave me the info- to turn against 4ED.

"Where's the love, or at least tolerance?"
I'll tolerate it. Not choice really. Wish I could do more.
But, I'm worried that the most important game in this industry is going to crash badly. All I can do is say so before it happends. ;)
GAMMA WORLD Wuv D&D: Beyond the RPG - Transcript This is a complete transcript. http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/22329697?sdb=1&pg=last#390668593 The audio file is in this News Archive http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4news/DNDXP 2010 D&D Product Overview (47 minutes into the Audio) http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/22329697?sdb=1&pg=last#390928045
My major apprehension is this...

Essentially I went from having a great time with the basic set to having an equally fun time with over 75 Hardbacks for the 3.0/3.5 alone.

For you monetary minded people this roughly equals:

1980 Basic D&D Fun = Approximately $20
2008 3.0/3.5 D&D Fun = At the very least $2000
My imagination = Priceless (Sorry =)

So please forgive me if I do not jump for joy when a new system is announced. I have allowed myself to be milked for years in order to promote the game. I will continue to support the game, buy the core set and run it with my players, but on a whole but I just can not invest in another edition (This means a lot of conversions from previous editions).

Realistically we don't need the books, magazines and programs to play the game. I can and have played excellent games having only a set of dice with me at the time. In the end the game really only consists of getting together with friends, storytelling, imagination and dice.

So whether 4e is better of not is irrelevant. We as DM's will take it and tweak it until it fits our game. We will then mend the holes with a few house rules and regardless of how wonderful it was in the beginning it will always come out a twisted and mutated hybrid of rules in the end. Nothing is sacred for us and we always reserve the right to moan and 'fix' all the mistakes dozens of educated and intelligent game designers have made over the years (That's what makes us so eclectic and loveable =).

I sincerely hope it does well and draws more players in, but in the end it won't be the books that keep them playing, it will be us filthy, conniving, nasty DM's=)
Whoever spends more than 90$ and doesn't like it doesn't deserve it better. You don't need anything bside that.

And in our groups, I spend 90$, all the other players spend nothing.
Lands of the Barbarian Kings Campaign Setting - http://barbaripedia.eu
Sign In to post comments