Thanks, I said as much in about 4 different places over the last few days. My main conceit was that through the oddities and quirks of 1E, many of us learned "what D&D is" based on the game that it became as we tried to make it actually work for us. Perhaps the essence of D&D isn't AC, or HP, or THAC0 or Beholders (although each has its place in its history). Perhaps the essence of D&D is that it needs to be broken up, beaten, molded by each of us to make it our own. Perhaps, in the quest for better and more complete and more balanced rules, (all noble pursuits), we got away from that idea that the system isn't supposed to be perfect or complete, lest we feel no need to personalize it. Perhaps that's why so many people said 4E was excellent but somehow "off".
I think this may actually be the most successful part of the so-called "D&D Next". It's supposed to be modular, and it's supposed be about "playing the game your way". Mearls made a comment to the effect of "4e was like saying the way to play the guitar was thrash metal and that's it", and while I think it was effective, a lot of other editions made that same sort of impression on its players (after all, there's many ways to play a guitar in reality, just like there's many ways to play D&D). The concept of an edition that backs up and says "alright, so we've got four ways to play this roleplaying guitar, and here's a way to do it any of those ways and even some new ways and further still ways to combine these options into your own style" is appealing at a base level, assuming it does what's written on the box.
I think this may actually be the most successful part of the so-called "D&D Next". It's supposed to be modular, and it's supposed be about "playing the game your way". Mearls made a comment to the effect of "4e was like saying the way to play the gui
Example: I think 4e magic items are terrible. Not only are they boring, but they failed at one of their own design goals which was to make character building less reliant on magic. Instead they made character building intimately tied and dependent on magic items. I would like to see a return in philosophy to 1e/2e D&D, in that I would like to see magic items as unnecessary and very special "gifts" to the players. Keeping the 4e ideas of making sure items don't break game balance, and having levels and rarity is great too. I definitely like the 4e artifacts and concordance rules. I would also like to see magic item scaling. Elric didn't throw away Stormbringer as he progressed in experience and power, characters shouldn't either.
I keep seeing this as a theme in this thread. Our weekly group also held the 4e magic item requirements to be one of the top things that we felt needed to be addressed.
I keep seeing this as a theme in this thread. Our weekly group also held the 4e magic item requirements to be one of the top things that we felt needed to be addressed.
Example: I think 4e magic items are terrible. Not only are they boring, but they failed at one of their own design goals which was to make character building less reliant on magic. Instead they made character building intimately tied and dependent on magic items. I would like to see a return in philosophy to 1e/2e D&D, in that I would like to see magic items as unnecessary and very special "gifts" to the players. Keeping the 4e ideas of making sure items don't break game balance, and having levels and rarity is great too. I definitely like the 4e artifacts and concordance rules. I would also like to see magic item scaling. Elric didn't throw away Stormbringer as he progressed in experience and power, characters shouldn't either.
I keep seeing this as a theme in this thread. Our weekly group also held the 4e magic item requirements to be one of the top things that we felt needed to be addressed.
I'd be curious to hear from people who liked how it was done in 4E give some reasons. I'm interested to know if this is something that can be solved with a modular approach. Not everything can but a most things can as far as I can tell. I wonder if this is an outlier.
I keep seeing this as a theme in this thread. Our weekly group also held the 4e magic item requirements to be one of the top things that we felt needed to be addressed.[/quote]I'd be curious to hear from people who liked how it was done in 4E give s
if you haven't played 4th ed, then your opinion really shouldn't matter. i've met so many people who hate 4e who never tried it. this makes little sense.
4e is not without its faults. the first was probably that it tried to take itself too seriously. playing D&D has always been more about community, and having fun, than about the specifics of hit point ratio and attack bonuses, yadda yadda.
the idea of magic item levels works well, as does the balance of the classes - basically, skinnable features on top of a ruleset that is even-handed for players and DM's. personally, i think that damage characters deal should scale up a little faster than the 3 tier process, but we've never played characters over 17th level so this is a relatively minor issue THAT DOESN'T STOP US FROM HAVING FUN.
D&D Essentials was a case of too little, too late. The basic box set should have come out when the 4E rulebooks debuted. And attempting to build a company's profits on collectible (but non-essential) items during the economy's worst downturn ever was a case of really bad foresight. However, But WotC's marketing mistakes aren't really my strong suit.
if you haven't played 4th ed, then your opinion really shouldn't matter. i've met so many people who hate 4e who never tried it. this makes little sense.4e is not without its faults. the first was probably that it tried to take itself too seriously.
Part of 4E's magic item system works very well and some parts don't.
The stuff that works well: its simple to use and understand, excepting a few things like the old daily power limits on items. There are a wide variety of items, few of which were overpowered by themselves. There were a lot of items too. For instance there are over a hundred different holy symbols and items that work as holy symbols to pick from and that is an item that by default is only used by 3 classes, with most builds not even using one. Almost all of them are at least decent.
The stuff that didn't work well: for all of good balanced part of 4E, items are not that balanced. There were few items really that stood out as much better and most were average. Generally the ones that stood out had good static properties: They gave you a resistance, they changed a damage type, they let you avoid OAs on a charge, they did extra damage on all charges or melee attacks, etc.. If it didn't have a static power least had an encounter power that you could use pretty much every encounter. Every once in a while there was one with an outstanding daily power, but most daily powers on items were not that great and PCs only used them as an afterthought. On the whole this helped lead to things like the standard gouge charge package most charop people recommend for boosting DPR.
Some items types were not supported as well as others. For implements staff is generally king because of better types and feat support and since its a weapliment too. There were good things you could do with others for specific builds, but totems and wands never came close for instance. Weapliments were a mess from the start and are still confusing (see the monk handbook and ki focuses), but are still often better than regular implements. And there was the big problem, later fixed, of not letting mc implement users use all implement powers with any implement, while weapon users never had to worry about that.
Generally weapons are better, for best enchantments and feat support, than implements, even when comparing for similar builds: ranged weapon and weapliment users are often better off than ranged implement users. It took forever to get simple fixes like an implement focus feat and some implement users like monks, shamans, and clerics (and I think druids too and possibly others) still to this day don't have improved crit feats. There is no equivalent of iron armbands of powers for most implement users so implement classes usually fall behind there.
And a good fix for the next version would be to get rid of the sacred cow of +X items or at least let items level up with PCs.
Part of 4E's magic item system works very well and some parts don't. The stuff that works well: its simple to use and understand, excepting a few things like the old daily power limits on items. There are a wide variety of items, few of which were
1. Drop the 1000's of unique 4e powers for each class and go back to basic spell lists for each power source that the classes can pick from. There is far too much redundancy in the system and far too many powers to learn. As a DM, I'm constantly asking the players to read out their powers during play. This is more annoying than any other edition. Focus on creating classes the same way that computer programmers do. In that sense, classes should serve to reduce redundancy. For example a Necromancer could be a derived class from the Mage parent class.
2. Remove the Roles. Let all the classes be any role they want to be at any given time. Do this and many players will return to the game. This isn't something to be argued, it's just a fact that if players no longer feel that they are being pigeonholed (a common complaint about 4e) they will return to the game.
3. Remove the dependency on magical items.
4. Remove incremental AC. Keep AC's static and don't increase them with level.
5. Reduce combat time.
6. Eliminate the need for a grid.
7. Make tracking effects easy. 4e is the worst system in this regard. A bless or a prayer spell from previous editions is easy to track compared to all the crazy effects in 4e that end and change at different times within the round.
8. Bring back magic into the game. I'm not sure how but this needs to be done because it is a common complaint with 4e. Maybe rituals should be allowed to be cast during combat.
9. Bring back save or die for those who like it.
10. OGL
11. More detailed skills. Perform, Slight of Hand, Search, Disarm Traps, Hide in Shadows, Move silently etc. This way each rogue is very different. With 4e if you have two rogues in the party they'll have about the same thievery chance. Maybe something like having thievery as a base parent skill and you can then put points into each specialized sub skill under it. You can even make the detailed/sub skills optional for those who like them.
12. More focus on non-combat related character options and features.
13. Reduce or even eliminate feats. There are a ridiculous number of feats in 4e. And you shouldn't need a computer program to search them all.
14. Printed material. Stop trying to rip people off and take a look at how Pathfinder organized its material. I would rather pay a high price for a few books that contain everything I need then wait for dozens of smaller books to be published. We also should constantly see people post questions on the forums like, "What books do I need to play the game?". That should be obvious. Second, the 4e books are poor quality and the pages bleed/smudge. The errata made much of the printed material useless. Truly, WoTC must produce a quality product that has more substance than graphics.
A few things I would like to see in 5e.1. Drop the 1000's of unique 4e powers for each class and go back to basic spell lists for each power source that the classes can pick from. There is far too much redundancy in the system and far too many
1. Drop the 1000's of unique 4e powers for each class and go back to basic spell lists for each power source that the classes can pick from. There is far too much redundancy in the system and far too many powers to learn. As a DM, I'm constantly asking the players to read out their powers during play. This is more annoying than any other edition. Focus on creating classes the same way that computer programmers do. In that sense, classes should serve to reduce redundancy. For example a Necromancer could be a derived class from the Mage parent class.
2. Remove the Roles. Let all the classes be any role they want to be at any given time. Do this and many players will return to the game. This isn't something to be argued, it's just a fact that if players no longer feel that they are being pigeonholed (a common complaint about 4e) they will return to the game.
3. Remove the dependency on magical items.
4. Remove incremental AC. Keep AC's static and don't increase them with level.
5. Reduce combat time.
6. Eliminate the need for a grid.
7. Make tracking effects easy. 4e is the worst system in this regard. A bless or a prayer spell from previous editions is easy to track compared to all the crazy effects in 4e that end and change at different times within the round.
8. Bring back magic into the game. I'm not sure how but this needs to be done because it is a common complaint with 4e. Maybe rituals should be allowed to be cast during combat.
9. Bring back save or die for those who like it.
10. OGL
11. More detailed skills. Perform, Slight of Hand, Search, Disarm Traps, Hide in Shadows, Move silently etc. This way each rogue is very different. With 4e if you have two rogues in the party they'll have about the same thievery chance. Maybe something like having thievery as a base parent skill and you can then put points into each specialized sub skill under it. You can even make the detailed/sub skills optional for those who like them.
12. More focus on non-combat related character options and features.
13. Reduce or even eliminate feats. There are a ridiculous number of feats in 4e. And you shouldn't need a computer program to search them all.
14. Printed material. Stop trying to rip people off and take a look at how Pathfinder organized its material. I would rather pay a high price for a few books that contain everything I need then wait for dozens of smaller books to be published. We also should constantly see people post questions on the forums like, "What books do I need to play the game?". That should be obvious. Second, the 4e books are poor quality and the pages bleed/smudge. The errata made much of the printed material useless. Truly, WoTC must produce a quality product that has more substance than graphics.
I could live with most of these. Particularly if they were options, rather than forced on us. However, I would say that you don't actually want to remove the concept of roles, but rather uncouple them from class. So that any class can play any role with the right powers. I like this idea. There has been a lot of talk in the 4E community about role powers, as a pool, rather than only class powers. I would love the idea that I could pick a defender power and a striker power so that when I want to defend, I can do that and if I want to strike, I can do that. Now, I recognize a lot goes into a defender moreso than just power choice, like AC, HP, Surges etc, but this is simply the difference between a specialist and a generalist. Classes could still more conducive to certain rolls. Much like dwarves tended to be fighters in early editions, fighters would tend to be defenders in future editions. But much like people hating that dwarves can't be wizards, people hate that fighters can't be strikers, etc.
I could live with most of these. Particularly if they were options, rather than forced on us. However, I would say that you don't actually want to remove the concept of roles, but rather uncouple them from class. So that any class can play any role w
Part of the mistake was that people think Wotc labeling of class roles was accurate or that any one class was ever in just one role. No 4E class fits solely one role, though some class builds come kind of close to doing that.
Every class has builds that do more than one role, often doing as good or better job at the other or part of the other role than the role Wotc labeled them as.
Part of the mistake was that people think Wotc labeling of class roles was accurate or that any one class was ever in just one role. No 4E class fits solely one role, though some class builds come kind of close to doing that.Every class has builds t
Part of the mistake was that people think Wotc labeling of class roles was accurate or that any one class was ever in just one role. No 4E class fits solely one role, though some class builds come kind of close to doing that.
Every class has builds that do more than one role, often doing as good or better job at the other or part of the other role than the role Wotc labeled them as.
I think the problem was that when you made a fighter that acted more like a striker, other players would get upset at you for not acting like a defender. There was a perception on both sides that you had to play your role and if you didn't you were being selfish or you where not pulling your weight in the party. Right or wrong that has to stop and the games mechanics shouldn't be designed around it.
I think the problem was that when you made a fighter that acted more like a striker, other players would get upset at you for not acting like a defender. There was a perception on both sides that you had to play your role and if you didn't you were
I have played a lot of 4E and never experienced that. I don't ever remember getting upset or seeing anyone upset over what roles allies were trying to fill And almost every PC I played focused a lot on its secondary roles as did many of the people I played with.
About the only time I remember seeing people upset with allies over something in 4E was with something like friendly fire, which can occur in any edition.
I have played a lot of 4E and never experienced that. I don't ever remember getting upset or seeing anyone upset over what roles allies were trying to fill And almost every PC I played focused a lot on its secondary roles as did many of the people
I have played a lot of 4E and never experienced that. I don't ever remember getting upset or seeing anyone upset over what roles allies were trying to fill And almost every PC I played focused a lot on its secondary roles as did many of the people I played with.
About the only time I remember seeing people upset with allies over something in 4E was with something like friendly fire, which can occur in any edition.
I haven't seen the problem he mentions either. But then again, we were always good little boys and girls and dutifully played the roles our characters were designed for. Sure, we would branch out a bit when necessary, but for the most part, the fighter was locking people down and the ranger was fedexing death to everything around him.
I haven't seen the problem he mentions either. But then again, we were always good little boys and girls and dutifully played the roles our characters were designed for. Sure, we would branch out a bit when necessary, but for the most part, the fight
There was a perception on both sides that you had to play your role and if you didn't you were being selfish or you where not pulling your weight in the party. Right or wrong that has to stop and the games mechanics shouldn't be designed around it.
This perception has been around since 1e. Clerics were always expected to be the healer. 4e only codifies that which already existed. I don't care in my party (as player or DM) has a martial striker, but someone had better play a defender else the squishy controller and ranged striker types are toast. We recently ran a campaign where someone ran a divine leader (templar), but he built and ran the character like a defender, or a striker. The problem with that was that he didn't fill either of the latter two roles passibly, and he more often than not healed himself because he couldn't take hits as well as a true defender. The rest of the party would have been out of luck had we not also had a bard who ended up healing better than the cleric was built to.
This perception has been around since 1e. Clerics were always expected to be the healer. 4e only codifies that which already existed. I don't care in my party (as player or DM) has a martial striker, but someone had better play a defender else the
2. Remove the Roles. Let all the classes be any role they want to be at any given time. Do this and many players will return to the game. This isn't something to be argued, it's just a fact that if players no longer feel that they are being pigeonholed (a common complaint about 4e) they will return to the game.
Roles are not pigeon holes. They are guides. EVERY class has a secondary role. And most of the later builds are completely different from their original PHB versions.
8. Bring back magic into the game. I'm not sure how but this needs to be done because it is a common complaint with 4e. Maybe rituals should be allowed to be cast during combat.
I've heard lots of people talk about a lack of magic. The complaint never makes any sense to me. Magic is all over the game just as it always has been.
9. Bring back save or die for those who like it.
You like them. I don't. Guess we won't agree on that one. Optional would be OK the problem comes when it really isn't optional.
11. More detailed skills. Perform, Slight of Hand, Search, Disarm Traps, Hide in Shadows, Move silently etc. This way each rogue is very different. With 4e if you have two rogues in the party they'll have about the same thievery chance. Maybe something like having thievery as a base parent skill and you can then put points into each specialized sub skill under it. You can even make the detailed/sub skills optional for those who like them.
I like the simplicity of the 4E list. However your point about multiple thieves having similar thievery is true. Though how often are there two people of the same class playing at the same table? How much of a concern should duplication be? Even with more detail wouldn't two characters of the same class still be pretty much the same? More detail would be cool, but 3.5's list was way to long and had way too many useless ones. There's probably a mid point that would be better.
Most of your points are good. I do have a problem with a couple of them.Roles are not pigeon holes. They are guides. EVERY class has a secondary role. And most of the later builds are completely different from their original PHB versions. I've heard
There was a perception on both sides that you had to play your role and if you didn't you were being selfish or you where not pulling your weight in the party. Right or wrong that has to stop and the games mechanics shouldn't be designed around it.
This perception has been around since 1e. Clerics were always expected to be the healer. 4e only codifies that which already existed. I don't care in my party (as player or DM) has a martial striker, but someone had better play a defender else the squishy controller and ranged striker types are toast. We recently ran a campaign where someone ran a divine leader (templar), but he built and ran the character like a defender, or a striker. The problem with that was that he didn't fill either of the latter two roles passibly, and he more often than not healed himself because he couldn't take hits as well as a true defender. The rest of the party would have been out of luck had we not also had a bard who ended up healing better than the cleric was built to.
I do recal playing a fighter/cleric in 2e that always healed himself. I had a lot of fun too.
Reglardless, the game for some people isn't about min/maxing party power levels, it's about role playing. Typically, any weakness in the party was something that the DM was responsible for managing, not the players and their character builds. To a large extent I think this is still true in 4e. The DM must understand what the party is capable of fighting regardless of encounter design rules. The players shouldn't be blamed for the character builds they are playing. All options should be open to the player and there really shouldn't be any bad character design choices.
This perception has been around since 1e. Clerics were always expected to be the healer. 4e only codifies that which already existed. I don't care in my party (as player or DM) has a martial striker, but someone had better play a defender else the
Roles are not pigeon holes. They are guides. EVERY class has a secondary role. And most of the later builds are completely different from their original PHB versions.
To argue that they are or not is pointless. Many people bitched about this when 4e came out. Just look on youtube I really don't want to see that same complaint voiced again for 5e. We just don't need it.
I've heard lots of people talk about a lack of magic. The complaint never makes any sense to me. Magic is all over the game just as it always has been.
I think magic is very different in 4e, but that is a long topic to get into. Magic used to be something that everyone tried to aquire. MME was a welcome change in this regard, but more work needs to be done.
I like the simplicity of the 4E list. However your point about multiple thieves having similar thievery is true. Though how often are there two people of the same class playing at the same table? How much of a concern should duplication be? Even with more detail wouldn't two characters of the same class still be pretty much the same? More detail would be cool, but 3.5's list was way to long and had way too many useless ones. There's probably a mid point that would be better.
Try DMing a theives guild campaign were all the players must take a rogue like class. I've done this before in 2e and we had a great time. I'm not sure how it would work in 4e since you would really only need one rogue. That rogue could do all the out of combat stuff on his own ( Forgery, Pick Locks, Disable Device, Bluff, Sneak, etc... )
This could even appply for skills like Athletics with sub skills like swimming, jumping, running, etc. Arcana could also have subskills. Detect Magic, Read Magic, Indentify, Dispel Magic, etc...
I'm not sure where older skills like Perform or Musical Intrument would fit in, but perhaps they would fall under a bard parent skill of some kind.
Anyway it's just a thought.
To argue that they are or not is pointless. Many people bitched about this when 4e came out. Just look on youtube I really don't want to see that same complaint voiced again for 5e. We just don't need it. I think magic is very different
I do recal playing a fighter/cleric in 2e that always healed himself. I had a lot of fun too.
I wonder how much fun everyone else had. I know if you hadn't explained that you were going to mostly heal yourself and the party had no other healer, I would be pissed, and rightly so.
Reglardless, the game for some people isn't about min/maxing party power levels, it's about role playing. Typically, any weakness in the party was something that the DM was responsible for managing, not the players and their character builds. To a large extent I think this is still true in 4e. The DM must understand what the party is capable of fighting regardless of encounter design rules. The players shouldn't be blamed for the character builds they are playing. All options should be open to the player and there really shouldn't be any bad character design choices.
If you knew me from much of my past posts you would know I often throw conventional wisdom out the window in favor of role-playing. What you are talking about causes deep tactical issues for a party especially if they are not forewarned. If a player takes a cleric and doesn't broadcast that they won't be healing the party, they are most definitely being selfish. I am not going to fail to go after a squishy wizard when the fighter refuses to mark my soldier because he should be free to choose, and the wizard has every right to be angry with the fighter for failing at his role. This was true in every edition of the game. Players who choose to do those things are certainly free to do so, but they also are fully responsible for the consequences. Making a choice and denying responsibility for it sounds like something children do, not adults.
I wonder how much fun everyone else had. I know if you hadn't explained that you were going to mostly heal yourself and the party had no other healer, I would be pissed, and rightly so. If you knew me from much of my past posts you would know I oft
If you knew me from much of my past posts you would know I often throw conventional wisdom out the window in favor of role-playing. What you are talking about causes deep tactical issues for a party especially if they are not forewarned. If a player takes a cleric and doesn't broadcast that they won't be healing the party, they are most definitely being selfish. I am not going to fail to go after a squshy wizard when the fighter refuses to mark my soldier because he should be free to choose, and the wizard has every right to be angry with the fighter for failing at his role. This was true in every edition of the game. Players who choose to do those things are certainly free to do so, but they also are fully responsible for the consequences. Making a choice and denying responsibility for it sounds like something children do, not adults.
Why is any of this an issue if the DM is managing the monsters and ensuring a TPK doesn't happen as he should be.
When I played in parties without clerics (in previous editions) the DM would simply drop a decanter of endless healing potions or something to that effect.
For me, the game is about the role playing and not the effectiveness of the party, which isn't an issue if you have a good DM.
I am not going to fail to go after a squshy wizard when the fighter refuses to mark my soldier because he should be free to choose, and the wizard has every right to be angry with the fighter for failing at his role.
And that is something very specific to 4e that never happened in previous editions. I'm not exactly sure how the Wizard ( in character ) even knows that the fighter never marked the soldier. What exactly is a mark anyway? Sounds a bit too gamish to be something that could be role played, but I'm sure someone has a great explanation for it. Regardless, why was the wizard close enough to get hit by the soldier in the first place? It could very well be his fault for moving in too close or failing to turn invisible.
In pervious editions I don't recal a party being upset at the cleric because the fighter missed his attack roll by one point, and then blamed the cleric for not casting a bless spell.
When I play D&D, the role playing concept is more important than the mechanics of the game or how the character interacts with other party members in combat. . No offence, but the game for me was never about min/maxing party roles and party power levels. It was about playing the role playing concept you had in mind and you often did that at the expense of power. You could, if you wanted, make a fighter with an 18 INT named Leaping Lany Poffo and no one would be upset with you. When I played D&D in previous editions, you didn't have to be effective at your job in combat, you just had to role play your character and have fun.
Why is any of this an issue if the DM is managing the monsters and ensuring a TPK doesn't happen as he should be.When I played in parties without clerics (in previous editions) the DM would simply drop a decanter of endless healing potions or somethi
If you knew me from much of my past posts you would know I often throw conventional wisdom out the window in favor of role-playing. What you are talking about causes deep tactical issues for a party especially if they are not forewarned. If a player takes a cleric and doesn't broadcast that they won't be healing the party, they are most definitely being selfish. I am not going to fail to go after a squshy wizard when the fighter refuses to mark my soldier because he should be free to choose, and the wizard has every right to be angry with the fighter for failing at his role. This was true in every edition of the game. Players who choose to do those things are certainly free to do so, but they also are fully responsible for the consequences. Making a choice and denying responsibility for it sounds like something children do, not adults.
Why is any of this an issue if the DM is managing the monsters and ensuring a TPK doesn't happen as he should be.
When I played in parties without clerics (in previous editions) the DM would simply drop a decanter of endless healing potions or something to that effect.
For me, the game is about the role playing and not the effectiveness of the party, which isn't an issue if you have a good DM.
I am not going to fail to go after a squshy wizard when the fighter refuses to mark my soldier because he should be free to choose, and the wizard has every right to be angry with the fighter for failing at his role.
And that is something very specific to 4e that never happened in previous editions. I'm not exactly sure how the Wizard ( in character ) even knows that the fighter never marked the soldier. What exactly is a mark anyway? Sounds a bit too gamish to be something that could be role played, but I'm sure someone has a great explanation for it. Regardless, why was the wizard close enough to get hit by the soldier in the first place? It could very well be his fault for moving in too close or failing to turn invisible.
In pervious editions I don't recal a party being upset at the cleric because the fighter missed his attack roll by one point, and then blamed the cleric for not casting a bless spell.
When I play D&D, the role playing concept is more important than the mechanics of the game or how the character interacts with other party members in combat. . No offence, but the game for me was never about min/maxing party roles and party power levels. It was about playing the role playing concept you had in mind and you often did that at the expense of power. You could, if you wanted, make a fighter with an 18 INT named Leaping Lany Poffo and no one would be upset with you. When I played D&D in previous editions, you didn't have to be effective at your job in combat, you just had to role play your character and have fun.
The Fighter's mark could be something like the Fighter being right in the face of the monster daring him to go after the wizard. When the monster tries to do so, the Fighter seizes the moment and lays into it. Then dares him to try it again. Not hard to imagine.
Why is any of this an issue if the DM is managing the monsters and ensuring a TPK doesn't happen as he should be.When I played in parties without clerics (in previous editions) the DM would simply drop a decanter of endless healing potions or somethi
and can you give even one example of that? tell me youre not calling combat challenge "your big power"
Yes I am, because if they are not 'big powers' then why would any wizard be upset when the fighter doesn't mark a soldier?
Combat Challenge, Steal Unity Attack, Aegis of Ensnarement, etc. Are great examples of powers that never happen unless the monster is being stupid.
Yes I am, because if they are not 'big powers' then why would any wizard be upset when the fighter doesn't mark a soldier? Combat Challenge, Steal Unity Attack, Aegis of Ensnarement, etc. Are great examples of powers that never happen unless t
and can you give even one example of that? tell me youre not calling combat challenge "your big power"
Yes I am, because if they are not 'big powers' then why would any wizard be upset when the fighter doesn't mark a soldier?
Combat Challenge, Steal Unity Attack, Aegis of Ensnarement, etc. Are great examples of powers that never happen unless the monster is being stupid.
I don't want to nitpick your comments because I can see what you're doing as being valid (if a bit different from how my group runs) but make no mistake, it is not the DMs job to ensure a TPK doesn't happen. That responsibility lies solely with the players. With regard to a TPK, the DMs only responsibility is to make sure it's not unavoidable.
Yes I am, because if they are not 'big powers' then why would any wizard be upset when the fighter doesn't mark a soldier? Combat Challenge, Steal Unity Attack, Aegis of Ensnarement, etc. Are great examples of powers that never happen unless t
When the effects of marks don't happen, they're working as intended. Counterintuitive, I know, but the mark is much more about limiting a monster's choices to two bad ones (attack the defender or attack someone else and taking damage) than it is about the extra DPS of the mark being violated. It's basically putting into a mechanical form something that D&D players have been talking about for years (the fighter keeping monsters away from the wizard, a trope that the fighter never really had the ability to do, previously).
When the effects of marks don't happen, they're working as intended. Counterintuitive, I know, but the mark is much more about limiting a monster's choices to two bad ones (attack the defender or attack someone else and taking damage) than it is abou
Then they introduced Auras in Essentials, which is elegant, but an admission that Marking was clunky and time consuming.
Auras are also something monsters have, so that's weird.
Conceptually, the mechanical decisions were all over the place.
I don't know whether I should find reasons to love 4e or hate it. What opinion should I adopt, WOTC? A month ago, I needed to love 4e, now, throw it in the ashbin.
Then they introduced Auras in Essentials, which is elegant, but an admission that Marking was clunky and time consuming. Auras are also something monsters have, so that's weird.Conceptually, the mechanical decisions were all over the place.I don't kn
actually i think marks are far superior. i can have something marked and not have to be right next to it. and to say they are time consuming, well thats just outrageous
actually i think marks are far superior. i can have something marked and not have to be right next to it. and to say they are time consuming, well thats just outrageous
I played D&D for over a decade back in the day, and it was the same game the whole time. I come back a couple of years ago and there's a major re-jiggering called 'Essentials' and an announced new 'itteration,' already.
I know things are supposed to be 'moving faster' these days but this is rediculous. New books every month. Errata every month. New 'itterrations' every year or two. Why make the effort to keep up with all that? I could afford the books and the DDI. I can't afford to spend half my time re-learning a schizophrenic game that can't decide what it's supposed to be.
Back to AD&D to stay.
At least my Druid will be an actual druid who can shapechange AND cast cure wounds AND summon elementals, not pick one of the three and fake it.
I played D&D for over a decade back in the day, and it was the same game the whole time. I come back a couple of years ago and there's a major re-jiggering called 'Essentials' and an announced new 'itteration,' already.I know things are supposed to b
Alright, I've finally got through all the posts and I've got the time to make my response and get in on the action of what may become some aspect of DnD Next/DnD 5th Edition/DnD Moduar Mayhem/or whatever people want to call it. I've been playing DnD for around 5 or 6 years, maybe slightly longer. I first heard about DnD from a friend who played 2nd Edition, and that was where we were going to start. Well, I never to play 2nd, and only got to play at 3.5. Since that start, I've played strictly 3.5, which a small stint of 4th Edition (about 4 or 5 sessions) and a couple of sessions of Mutants & Masterminds. I have also played extensively a friends role playing system based a a d10 dice pool system, and have even tried my hand at making role playing games myself, but have not have the chance to play them. Well, I thought you all should know my background as I make suggestions, criticisms, and remarks are game theory, more specifically that of role-playing games.
First off, I want to comment on the posts made on the past couple of pages about classes and party roles. I originally thought classifying 4ed classes in roles was stupid and just trying to appeal to the MMORPG market (which 4ed was obvsiouly designed to appeal to to some degree). I later realized these were mainly a guidance system for players (as someone else has mentioned), kind of giving a summary idea of what the classes stood for overall. They did something similar at the beginning of Prestige Class chapters in 3.5. Anyways, it seems as if the existence of classes and roles has caused a bit of a clash in parties, and some people are fighting over the basic game theory argument of "role-playing" vs "roll-playing". Truly, these two sides are generally player preferences, the difference between power players/players who want to win, and players who want to be their character and become part of the story, regardless of the what the rulebooks say. I see people on the forums say they are unhappy when a player does not take on their party role, but I only see that an issue when it is out of character (I tend to be a hard-core “role-player”, though depending on the group, will flip back and forth).
I know DnD from the beginning has been built around classes, somewhat assigning roles to different players. And in the beginning, I’m sure it worked wonderfully. But as the game has evolved, and the whole role-playing genre has grown, the strict class system doesn’t work for how many players want to play and develop their characters. If the DnD community wants to keep the class system, they will either need to get over the fact that strict classes pigeonhole and will either feel too similar or unbalanced, or they need no class system or need a broader one. To make a modular system, I think a few broad classes (such as the Warrior, Spellcaster, and Expert) with options as they develop to become more focused, and thus more different, would be a good idea. Or, have a base class, such as the Adventurer somewhat else mentioned, that has a somewhat personalized level progression (I’m think you get a number of points each level that can be put into either Base Attack, Saves, HP, Skills, etc) and then you choose Feats/Powers/Talents each level to become more of a focused characters, with certain Feats requiring investment in previous Feats and point buys. I guess it would like a sort of Skill Tree in the end. Or, you have less Feats per leveling, by their ability advances with your level.
The last thing I’ll mention, since my post is getting long, is party dynamics and player differences. I see some of the statements made throughout the forum and I think some people are forgetting those two things. I think these things may be why Wizards wants a modular system, since preferences can be so different. As having been part of dramatically different groups, making DnD appeal to all these players will not be easy. Either the game system has to be wide open, or the players have to be wide open and understanding. I can enjoy playing many different game systems, utilizing the strengths of each. But whether it is the investment costs or the groups we get to play with, many people have the chance to play only one system. But we must not forget that ultimately, the games are roe-playing games and DM have, and always will, alter or ignore rules to fit their game and/or setting.
Alright, I've finally got through all the posts and I've got the time to make my response and get in on the action of what may become some aspect of DnD Next/DnD 5th Edition/DnD Moduar Mayhem/or whatever people want to call it. I've been playing DnD
I played D&D for over a decade back in the day, and it was the same game the whole time. I come back a couple of years ago and there's a major re-jiggering called 'Essentials' and an announced new 'itteration,' already.
I know things are supposed to be 'moving faster' these days but this is rediculous. New books every month. Errata every month. New 'itterrations' every year or two. Why make the effort to keep up with all that? I could afford the books and the DDI. I can't afford to spend half my time re-learning a schizophrenic game that can't decide what it's supposed to be.
Back to AD&D to stay.
At least my Druid will be an actual druid who can shapechange AND cast cure wounds AND summon elementals, not pick one of the three and fake it.
Did you really just say "an actual druid"? Like if you can't do all those things you're a "pretend" druid? I'm all for loving AD&D and I'm all for criticizing the schizofrenic pace at which material is released and errata'd in the modern era but "actual druid"? Hrmmmk.
But yeah, I like auras and marks. I think auras are much less bookkeeping and so I like the for that but Marks are probably a bit more versatile. This is why it's nice to have both options. Would be cool to have that be a choice when you create a defender. Like the way a Ranger chooses prime shot or running attack, the fighter could choose combat challenge or combat aura or the like.
Did you really just say "an actual druid"? Like if you can't do all those things you're a "pretend" druid?I'm all for loving AD&D and I'm all for criticizing the schizofrenic pace at which material is released and errata'd in the modern era but "actu
Alright, I've finally got through all the posts and I've got the time to make my response and get in on the action of what may become some aspect of DnD Next/DnD 5th Edition/DnD Moduar Mayhem/or whatever people want to call it. I've been playing DnD for around 5 or 6 years, maybe slightly longer. I first heard about DnD from a friend who played 2nd Edition, and that was where we were going to start. Well, I never to play 2nd, and only got to play at 3.5. Since that start, I've played strictly 3.5, which a small stint of 4th Edition (about 4 or 5 sessions) and a couple of sessions of Mutants & Masterminds. I have also played extensively a friends role playing system based a a d10 dice pool system, and have even tried my hand at making role playing games myself, but have not have the chance to play them. Well, I thought you all should know my background as I make suggestions, criticisms, and remarks are game theory, more specifically that of role-playing games.
First off, I want to comment on the posts made on the past couple of pages about classes and party roles. I originally thought classifying 4ed classes in roles was stupid and just trying to appeal to the MMORPG market (which 4ed was obvsiouly designed to appeal to to some degree). I later realized these were mainly a guidance system for players (as someone else has mentioned), kind of giving a summary idea of what the classes stood for overall. They did something similar at the beginning of Prestige Class chapters in 3.5. Anyways, it seems as if the existence of classes and roles has caused a bit of a clash in parties, and some people are fighting over the basic game theory argument of "role-playing" vs "roll-playing". Truly, these two sides are generally player preferences, the difference between power players/players who want to win, and players who want to be their character and become part of the story, regardless of the what the rulebooks say. I see people on the forums say they are unhappy when a player does not take on their party role, but I only see that an issue when it is out of character (I tend to be a hard-core “role-player”, though depending on the group, will flip back and forth).
I know DnD from the beginning has been built around classes, somewhat assigning roles to different players. And in the beginning, I’m sure it worked wonderfully. But as the game has evolved, and the whole role-playing genre has grown, the strict class system doesn’t work for how many players want to play and develop their characters. If the DnD community wants to keep the class system, they will either need to get over the fact that strict classes pigeonhole and will either feel too similar or unbalanced, or they need no class system or need a broader one. To make a modular system, I think a few broad classes (such as the Warrior, Spellcaster, and Expert) with options as they develop to become more focused, and thus more different, would be a good idea. Or, have a base class, such as the Adventurer somewhat else mentioned, that has a somewhat personalized level progression (I’m think you get a number of points each level that can be put into either Base Attack, Saves, HP, Skills, etc) and then you choose Feats/Powers/Talents each level to become more of a focused characters, with certain Feats requiring investment in previous Feats and point buys. I guess it would like a sort of Skill Tree in the end. Or, you have less Feats per leveling, by their ability advances with your level.
The last thing I’ll mention, since my post is getting long, is party dynamics and player differences. I see some of the statements made throughout the forum and I think some people are forgetting those two things. I think these things may be why Wizards wants a modular system, since preferences can be so different. As having been part of dramatically different groups, making DnD appeal to all these players will not be easy. Either the game system has to be wide open, or the players have to be wide open and understanding. I can enjoy playing many different game systems, utilizing the strengths of each. But whether it is the investment costs or the groups we get to play with, many people have the chance to play only one system. But we must not forget that ultimately, the games are roe-playing games and DM have, and always will, alter or ignore rules to fit their game and/or setting.
Lots of interesting thoughts. I like your class idea, making them broad and then building with just what you choose, kind of a hybrid between a class system and classless system. I've been thinking of something similar. What if classes were presented the way backgrounds (or themes) are presented in 4E. So you pick your theme (ranger, fighter, whatever) and that gives you some core set of abilities or a single basic progression as you level, but everything else is up to you, and if they choose to keep "power source" in 5E they could be segregated by power source. So maybe you pick a theme and then a power source and then just do whatever you want for your character. Now, certain themes(classes) could be more in tune with certain power sources, so there could a bit a bit of optimization there for those who want it, but nothing too drastic. Yeah, just some thoughts I've been having based on feedback I've been seeing lately, like yours.
Lots of interesting thoughts. I like your class idea, making them broad and then building with just what you choose, kind of a hybrid between a class system and classless system. I've been thinking of something similar. What if classes were presented
Lots of interesting thoughts. I like your class idea, making them broad and then building with just what you choose, kind of a hybrid between a class system and classless system. I've been thinking of something similar. What if classes were presented the way backgrounds (or themes) are presented in 4E. So you pick your theme (ranger, fighter, whatever) and that gives you some core set of abilities or a single basic progression as you level, but everything else is up to you, and if they choose to keep "power source" in 5E they could be segregated by power source. So maybe you pick a theme and then a power source and then just do whatever you want for your character. Now, certain themes(classes) could be more in tune with certain power sources, so there could a bit a bit of optimization there for those who want it, but nothing too drastic. Yeah, just some thoughts I've been having based on feedback I've been seeing lately, like yours.
I have not seen the 4E background/theme idea. There was a generic class system in 3.5's Unearthed Arcana, there you could take a base class and then take Feats based on the Core classes that let you mix them, or become a strict class. I'm kind of thinking about trying this idea in a homebrew campaign, as I've tried many other ideas (Disadvantage Systems, Specialty Feats [For roleplaying purposes over combat], alternate skill points [I'm using CON modifier for additional skill-points to use for physical skills], and alternate Race system). I haven't mentioned a least of issues I've had with 3.5, but I imagine I could toss those up here. I've already kind of mentioned one. I felt the CON score was one of the most underused scores in 3.5. Unless you have a high modifier or are in combat often, the extra HP is not of much use, or is not very much. And then CON has barely use in Skills. I alway thought it was weird how all the physical skills were based on INT (Skill Points) to become better, rather than physical capability and training. So, I attached CON to those skills, representing once endurance in training and overall physical capability.
I have not seen the 4E background/theme idea. There was a generic class system in 3.5's Unearthed Arcana, there you could take a base class and then take Feats based on the Core classes that let you mix them, or become a strict class. I'm kind of thi
"In summation, most players find that the game of seeking and gaining, with the ensuing increase in character capability is the thing. Combat at best is something to be done quickly so as to get on with the fun,"
Get combat out of the way quickly so we can get on with the fun!
it is not the DMs job to ensure a TPK doesn't happen. That responsibility lies solely with the players. With regard to a TPK, the DMs only responsibility is to make sure it's not unavoidable.
QFT! A DM's job has nothing to do with coddling his players. It is challenging the players and ensuring that everyone (within reason) is having fun. I notice that dmgorgon ignored my question about whether anyone else was having fun when his healer didn't heal anyone. RPGs are about fun for EVERYONE! It is a cooperative game, and making selfish decisions has no place in it unless...everyone at the table agrees it is okay. I role-play the heck out of my characters, but I never generate a personality in a vacuum. I always consider my responsibilities to the other players seated around the table with me.
QFT! A DM's job has nothing to do with coddling his players. It is challenging the players and ensuring that everyone (within reason) is having fun. I notice that dmgorgon ignored my question about whether anyone else was having fun when his heale
Try DMing a theives guild campaign were all the players must take a rogue like class. I've done this before in 2e and we had a great time. I'm not sure how it would work in 4e since you would really only need one rogue. That rogue could do all the out of combat stuff on his own ( Forgery, Pick Locks, Disable Device, Bluff, Sneak, etc... )
I'd join that game. I'd have to write new backgrounds for the characters, but either my Bard or my Tempest Ranger would work just fine. (My Rogue? I don't actually have one...)
I'd join that game. I'd have to write new backgrounds for the characters, but either my Bard or my Tempest Ranger would work just fine. (My Rogue? I don't actually have one...)
He also urged that the release of spammy splatbooks to increase player power and feature bloat was a bad relic of 2nd edition's TSR going bankrupt and a terrible idea. Same for spamming out settings, just because Dragonlance was an unexpected huge hit because, in his words, it fractured the fanbase.
He supported more adventure content and fewer rules that get in the way of the fun (causing people to break open books and go "no no no but on page 247 the footnote says..."). He thought alignment was to the point where it would be better to shoot it behind the shed than keep it because people were becoming obsessed with it by the early 2000s and that opposition should be rightfully dangerous, including things like level drain on undead (and that anyone who said it was unfair should go play Candyland instead because they obviously aren't mature enough to handle their entirely fictional character being hurt in any way). He mentioned further that adding encumbrance and weapon vs armor tables was done at the behest of several people who thought the game would be much better with them in it and he regretted including them ever since. There's some more stuff, too - I've got a big compiled list of Gary Gygax quotes I took from the Ask Gary threads over at ENWorld about any topic he spoke on that I considered even remotely interesting (not so much his choice in food, drink, and politics, much more his positions about game design!)
All in all I think he was a pretty smart dude. I may not agree with some of the setting flavor specifics he thought were a good idea but he definitely knew a lot about games.
He also urged that the release of spammy splatbooks to increase player power and feature bloat was a bad relic of 2nd edition's TSR going bankrupt and a terrible idea. Same for spamming out settings, just because Dragonlance was an unexpected huge hi
Try DMing a theives guild campaign were all the players must take a rogue like class. I've done this before in 2e and we had a great time. I'm not sure how it would work in 4e since you would really only need one rogue. That rogue could do all the out of combat stuff on his own ( Forgery, Pick Locks, Disable Device, Bluff, Sneak, etc... )
Just adjust it so you require more guys with thievery, stealth, insight, bluff, arcana, religion, history, nature, dungeoneering, healing, etc.
Here are the way to create Thieves Guild types in 4e Class: the most obvious part. Rogue, Thief, Executioner, Assassin, Ranger, Scout, Hunter fits
What I especially like though is themes and backgrounds to mak ANY CLASS pretty much work out. It also gives specialization with the existing roguish classes
Themes -Alchemist: You can create regents that help you in your suspicious activities. Breaking locks, melting bars, etc. You can also make smoke bombs and more, with access to alchemical formulas -Athasian Minstrel: add poison use to any existing class. Now your wizard has something even sneakier up his sleeve -Animal Master: add an animal companion's keen senses to the group
-Outlaw: ambush master type, enhancing assassins or giving fighters a sneaky kick -Reaver: the intimidating muscle, frighten enemies into submission -Yakuza: another variant of the enforcer type with a flair for getting even.
-Dune Trader: great social skills, can negotiate to your odds -Guttersnipe: this is the guy that operates the black market, bonuses to selling and acquiring goods
-Scholar: knows a lot about a lot of things be it the reputation of rival guilds, the origins of poisons, the rumors of lost treasures, etc. -Vile Scholar: knows a lot about a lot of things no mortal should know. If you've got dealings with the infernal, let the Vile Scholar do the dealing
These can be added to any existing class. Backgrounds can then be added in to give Thievery, Stealth, whatever to existing classes. Set the theme and you can fit a lot of ideas in. For example my Bladesinger has the Outlaw theme and Assassin background. He belongs to a clan of Eladrin Ninjas and I RP him as such (that's what Bladesingers are in my campaign)
A hypothetical sample of the 4e thieves in action
The scholar knows that the port was built over an ancient city with an extensive network of catacombs, it was discovered when the sewer tunnels dug in deep to expand the city. The way through the sewers is barred. The alchemist prepares his aqua regalia and the bars bend like wax with the application of a crowbar. As they go through the animal master's companion moves through a tiny hole to scout ahead. There's unexpected trouble ahead, agents from the guardswatch are in the tunnels. The outlaw draws his longsword, they'll be dead before they hit the ground.
and so on and so on, and then the guttersnipe fences the loot.
Just adjust it so you require more guys with thievery, stealth, insight, bluff, arcana, religion, history, nature, dungeoneering, healing, etc. Here are the way to create Thieves Guild types in 4eClass: the most obvious part. Rogue, Thief, Executione
Try DMing a theives guild campaign were all the players must take a rogue like class. I've done this before in 2e and we had a great time. I'm not sure how it would work in 4e since you would really only need one rogue. That rogue could do all the out of combat stuff on his own ( Forgery, Pick Locks, Disable Device, Bluff, Sneak, etc... )
Just adjust it so you require more guys with thievery, stealth, insight, bluff, arcana, religion, history, nature, dungeoneering, healing, etc.
Here are the way to create Thieves Guild types in 4e Class: the most obvious part. Rogue, Thief, Executioner, Assassin, Ranger, Scout, Hunter fits
What I especially like though is themes and backgrounds to mak ANY CLASS pretty much work out. It also gives specialization with the existing roguish classes
Themes -Alchemist: You can create regents that help you in your suspicious activities. Breaking locks, melting bars, etc. You can also make smoke bombs and more, with access to alchemical formulas -Athasian Minstrel: add poison use to any existing class. Now your wizard has something even sneakier up his sleeve -Animal Master: add an animal companion's keen senses to the group
-Outlaw: ambush master type, enhancing assassins or giving fighters a sneaky kick -Reaver: the intimidating muscle, frighten enemies into submission -Yakuza: another variant of the enforcer type with a flair for getting even.
-Dune Trader: great social skills, can negotiate to your odds -Guttersnipe: this is the guy that operates the black market, bonuses to selling and acquiring goods
-Scholar: knows a lot about a lot of things be it the reputation of rival guilds, the origins of poisons, the rumors of lost treasures, etc. -Vile Scholar: knows a lot about a lot of things no mortal should know. If you've got dealings with the infernal, let the Vile Scholar do the dealing
These can be added to any existing class. Backgrounds can then be added in to give Thievery, Stealth, whatever to existing classes. Set the theme and you can fit a lot of ideas in. For example my Bladesinger has the Outlaw theme and Assassin background. He belongs to a clan of Eladrin Ninjas and I RP him as such (that's what Bladesingers are in my campaign)
A hypothetical sample of the 4e thieves in action
The scholar knows that the port was built over an ancient city with an extensive network of catacombs, it was discovered when the sewer tunnels dug in deep to expand the city. The way through the sewers is barred. The alchemist prepares his aqua regalia and the bars bend like wax with the application of a crowbar. As they go through the animal master's companion moves through a tiny hole to scout ahead. There's unexpected trouble ahead, agents from the guardswatch are in the tunnels. The outlaw draws his longsword, they'll be dead before they hit the ground.
and so on and so on, and then the guttersnipe fences the loot.
Oh thanks I was going to do this but I lost track of the the thread and post..... The main gist of all this is... the rogue class is by a long shot not the be all end all of being a rogue character.
Just adjust it so you require more guys with thievery, stealth, insight, bluff, arcana, religion, history, nature, dungeoneering, healing, etc. Here are the way to create Thieves Guild types in 4eClass: the most obvious part. Rogue, Thief, Executione
I played D&D for over a decade back in the day, and it was the same game the whole time. I come back a couple of years ago and there's a major re-jiggering called 'Essentials' and an announced new 'itteration,' already.
I know things are supposed to be 'moving faster' these days but this is rediculous. New books every month. Errata every month. New 'itterrations' every year or two. Why make the effort to keep up with all that? I could afford the books and the DDI. I can't afford to spend half my time re-learning a schizophrenic game that can't decide what it's supposed to be.
This is a point I was just thinking about... 4E existed for, what, 2 and a half year, 3 years before the game design was "changed" by the Essential line ("all you'll ever need to play D&D!").
Essential lasted for... one year? One year and a half ? before 4E as a whole is considered obsolete, and the new "iteration" is anounced.
Maybe it was because the design team changed and the heads were not happy with their predecessors, or their conception of what D&d should be. Maybe it is because of "bad" sale figures. I just hope (but doubt...) the circonstances that caused this... instability will be corrected when they create 5E, or the wild iteration madness won't stop.
I fear that they may try too hard to "satisfy everybody", as well among the players that among the designers - and at the executive level, and try to do it too fast, without leting time tell the real value of their work. I doubt that any 5th edition will accomplish the miracle they are expecting - every design choice will please some and make some unhappy, even with a modular system. If the "team" doesn't learn to live with... let's say... disapointed expectations, theirs and the player's, we may see 5th edition Essential, 5.5, 5Th edition : the new concept and 6Th edition : born again too fast for our own good.
This is a point I was just thinking about... 4E existed for, what, 2 and a half year, 3 years before the game design was "changed" by the Essential line ("all you'll ever need to play D&D!").Essential lasted for... one year? One year and a half ? bef
Oh thanks I was going to do this but I lost track of the the thread and post..... The main gist of all this is... the rogue class is by a long shot not the be all end all of being a rogue character.
This will also be a point of interest with 5E : what will a class be ? This thread shows that for some people, it should define what the character is, while for others it is a way to describe what he can do, or what he is trained for. 1st edition classes were more of the first kind, 4E was more on the "trained for" side. What will 5E chose - and how many will find this choice inadequate ? As for the rogue guild... My current campaign is a "pirate" campaign, and it was quite fun to see how any 4E class could fit on a pirate ship with a little imagination.
This will also be a point of interest with 5E : what will a class be ? This thread shows that for some people, it should define what the character is, while for others it is a way to describe what he can do, or what he is trained for. 1st edition cla
it is not the DMs job to ensure a TPK doesn't happen. That responsibility lies solely with the players. With regard to a TPK, the DMs only responsibility is to make sure it's not unavoidable.
QFT! A DM's job has nothing to do with coddling his players. It is challenging the players and ensuring that everyone (within reason) is having fun. I notice that dmgorgon ignored my question about whether anyone else was having fun when his healer didn't heal anyone. RPGs are about fun for EVERYONE! It is a cooperative game, and making selfish decisions has no place in it unless...everyone at the table agrees it is okay. I role-play the heck out of my characters, but I never generate a personality in a vacuum. I always consider my responsibilities to the other players seated around the table with me.
Let me try to be clearer.
I think it is the DM's job to ensure that the party faces a reasonable challenge. I don't agree that the DM should coddle the players either, and I also don’t like systems that coddle the players. In fact I like it when players face deadly challenges and die a few times.
The point I was making was that the players and their builds should not trump role playing. If a party is very weak because they have all chosen to play characters that are not min/maxed munchkins, then it is the DM's job to ensure that they face a reasonable challenge.
If there is no cleric then the DM should provide some means of healing, like a staff or some other mechanism. There are many ways to bring healing into the game and it doesn’t have to be the responsibility of the cleric. If a character decides that he wants to play a fighter/cleric that heals himself the DM should allow for this. Likewise, if the party consists of mostly squishy characters then the DM is perfectly justified in allowing the party to hire a few front line NPC warriors. When I played there really was no demand on any party member to do X. In fact, I do recall having several NPC clerics or fighters in the party to fill in the gaps, but I never forced the players to play anything in particular.
I think that forcing a player into a particular role is just pointless. It isn't fun being forced to play something you don't want and it isn't fair to be called a selfish gamer simply because you are role playing a selfish character. I think that attitude started with 3e, but was ingrained into the 4e system.
In fact, when I watch players build their characters in 4e it is very different process. In general, everyone is focused on combat tactics alone. Players will say, “Hey why don’t you take this power that grants CA so I can use this power X all the time.” As an old school DM, I want to tell the players to shut it and stop min/maxing, but I can’t because that is just the nature of 4e. Previous editions discouraged this kind of min/maxing, but 4e encourages it. In fact, people are now focused on min/maxing the party’s abilities and powers far more than thinking about their characters in role playing terms. This kind of behavior makes me laugh. Don't these players realize that as the DM I could kill them at a whim I so chose? Don't they realize that if an encounter is too easy for them, I'll just toss a few more brutes in the mix?
Even the themes and backgrounds you select in 4e have some sort of mechanic benefit to them. In 4e I see players picking backgrounds for the sake of the bonus and not for the sake of role playing the background. This is why in my game I require the players to write a paragraph on their characters mentality, physical description, and history before they play.
Now as for that 2e fighter/cleric I played, since I was in the middle of battle all the time it was my job to stay alive. He had the best AC in the group and for the sake of the party it was his job to stay alive. After all, if he went down there would be no raise dead spells to raise all the fallen party members. The priest/cleric class, with the introduction of the specialty priests of the FR, was a very different concept than he is in 4e. There were clerics who were mostly warriors and some that were more like rogues, or even wizards. In the end, the cleric wasn't simply a healing monkey. His main job was to further the ethos of this deity. In fact, if he didn't he could have his spells revoked by his deity.
At one point I did try to duplicate my fighter/cleric concept in 4e and I ended up making a battlemind/cleric. In the end, he had a high AC, high HP, high attack damage (just as much as the strikers), damage resistance, and healing spells to boot. I loved that character because he was a self sufficient machine.
QFT! A DM's job has nothing to do with coddling his players. It is challenging the players and ensuring that everyone (within reason) is having fun. I notice that dmgorgon ignored my question about whether anyone else was having fun when his heale
After all, if he went down there would be no raise dead spells to raise all the fallen party members.
You keep ignoring my question. I know you had fun with your fighter/cleric and you were able to raise or heal the rest of the party between fights, but how did the rest of the party feel about needing to be raised or healed up from near dead all the time? Were they having fun, or did they resent you for not being a team player in a cooperative game?
Also note that I have been saying all along that any behavior is okay as long as everyone agrees on it. If your fun diminishes the fun of anyone at the table without their consent then you are being selfish.
You keep ignoring my question. I know you had fun with your fighter/cleric and you were able to raise or heal the rest of the party between fights, but how did the rest of the party feel about needing to be raised or healed up from near dead all the
In fact, when I watch players build their characters in 4e it is very different process. In general, everyone is focused on combat tactics alone. Players will say, “Hey why don’t you take this power that grants CA so I can use this power X all the time.” As an old school DM, I want to tell the players to shut it and stop min/maxing, but I can’t because that is just the nature of 4e. Previous editions discouraged this kind of min/maxing, but 4e encourages it. In fact, people are now focused on min/maxing the party’s abilities and powers far more than thinking about their characters in role playing terms.
What is wrong with people wanting to min/max? It sounds like your players were having fun and working as a team. Some people like playing the game that way and you want to take away the option.
And previous editions were often worse about min/maxing. You couldn't even cast higher level spells without a high enough base stat in some (all?) earlier editions. And Basic DD even gave you extra XP for min/maxing your stats IIRC. I think you got +10% XP if your primary stat was over a certain number, I think 16. And you had to have certain stats at a certain level to even be allowed to play certain classes.
You can build a non-min/maxed PC and still be very effective in 4E and use any power your class has and progress at the same rate as everyone else. Honestly any race can be fine playing any class if you want to.
What is wrong with people wanting to min/max? It sounds like your players were having fun and working as a team. Some people like playing the game that way and you want to take away the option.And previous editions were often worse about min/maxing
Oh thanks I was going to do this but I lost track of the the thread and post..... The main gist of all this is... the rogue class is by a long shot not the be all end all of being a rogue character.
This will also be a point of interest with 5E : what will a class be ? This thread shows that for some people, it should define what the character is, while for others it is a way to describe what he can do, or what he is trained for. 1st edition classes were more of the first kind, 4E was more on the "trained for" side. What will 5E chose - and how many will find this choice inadequate ? As for the rogue guild... My current campaign is a "pirate" campaign, and it was quite fun to see how any 4E class could fit on a pirate ship with a little imagination.
I'm hoping that there are a small number of bases classes from which the more specialized classes derive from and inherit the properties. At the very least, I hope that class bloat will be avoided in this edition.
They could design the system for making money or they could make it simple. Hopefully we get all classes in the PHB.
This will also be a point of interest with 5E : what will a class be ? This thread shows that for some people, it should define what the character is, while for others it is a way to describe what he can do, or what he is trained for. 1st edition cla
I am under the belief that 4e is the edition where the difference between SUPER OPTIMIZED and 'chosen for flavor' has the least drastic gap between them.
If I'm mistaken, and 3e discourages min/maxing further than 4e does, please correct me.
In AD&D though it's up to luck how capable you are as there's not much in mechanical customization.
I am under the belief that 4e is the edition where the difference between SUPER OPTIMIZED and 'chosen for flavor' has the least drastic gap between them.If I'm mistaken, and 3e discourages min/maxing further than 4e does, please correct me.In AD&D th
After all, if he went down there would be no raise dead spells to raise all the fallen party members.
You keep ignoring my question. I know you had fun with your fighter/cleric and you were able to raise or heal the rest of the party between fights, but how did the rest of the party feel about needing to be raised or healed up from near dead all the time? Were they having fun, or did they resent you for not being a team player in a cooperative game?
Also note that I have been saying all along that any behavior is okay as long as everyone agrees on it. If your fun diminishes the fun of anyone at the table without their consent then you are being selfish.
They never had a problem with it, if anything they encouraged it. After all, I'm sure the party would feel much worse if I died and the remaining party members had to drag all the bodies back to town and then pay 1000's of gold to have my character raised. You're also making the assumption that my character never healed anyone else in the party during combat.
You keep ignoring my question. I know you had fun with your fighter/cleric and you were able to raise or heal the rest of the party between fights, but how did the rest of the party feel about needing to be raised or healed up from near dead all the
I am under the belief that 4e is the edition where the difference between SUPER OPTIMIZED and 'chosen for flavor' has the least drastic gap between them.
If I'm mistaken, and 3e discourages min/maxing further than 4e does, please correct me.
In AD&D though it's up to luck how capable you are as there's not much in mechanical customization.
I would agree with your first statement with regards to 3E and 4E. Although the comparison kind of doesn't work with regard to early editions since optimzation as a concept was different back then.
Having said that, I would expand on your last statement and say that it wasn't so much about "luck" as it was about the dice and letting them help tell the story on a more basic level. And I would say that that is simply a different way to play the game, neither better nor worse. In recent editions, we've moved away from that. The dice have less and less say with each iteration as to what we can and can't do and what we are or are not good at. Some love this. In general I think most people are ok with it. I would argue that this has some impact on the "feel" of the game. I personally like the dice to help tell the story, even more than just whether I hit or miss. I like the challenge of shaping the narrative according to the dice. This is totally a personal asthetic concern. I understand other most likely prefer more control.
I would agree with your first statement with regards to 3E and 4E. Although the comparison kind of doesn't work with regard to early editions since optimzation as a concept was different back then.Having said that, I would expand on your last stateme
I am under the belief that 4e is the edition where the difference between SUPER OPTIMIZED and 'chosen for flavor' has the least drastic gap between them.
For the most part that is correct. There are a handful of very noticably under powered classes and races and a handful of overpowered options if you are full on optimizing. But you can mix pretty much any race and class combo put just a few minutes into picking your powers themes etc. and you will still contribute and not be noticably outshined by someone else. I have never seen a 4E PC that didn't contribute to the party on a consistent basis.
If you have someone doing a full on optimized Kulkor Arms Master charger or something then there is very noticable difference between that and another casual PC, but even then the casual PC is still probably contributing.
For the most part that is correct. There are a handful of very noticably under powered classes and races and a handful of overpowered options if you are full on optimizing. But you can mix pretty much any race and class combo put just a few minutes
I for one don't feel comfortable seeing yet another edition coming out. I have just gotten used to (and like more than 3rd edition) the 4th edition rules and game style. It finally made playing every class worth something to play, unlike 3rd edition where if you were a 1st level wizards you were basically a one hit a day wonder who cast his meager magic missile then sat down the rest of the fight unless you really wanted to hit something with a staff or a crossbow, that is what other classes are for like ranger or rogue. Sure at higher level you got better spells, but unless you play a campaign where you start high, you had best enjoy a miserable time being the party's third wheel after you got your one spell off. The concept of a wizard or sorcerer or any other spell caster with a spell always ready is something I like. What I don't want to see D&D regress back to that, might as well just play a party of fighters then and tear out the spell section of the book. If 5th turns out to regress to a 3rd edition like game, then why even buy it? Might as well buy Pathfinder (a.k.a. the repackaged D&D, but I don't believe the hype that says it’s a 3.75 edition, it’s still just 3.5 to me). I would also like to see it compatible with 4th in some way so that all the books I have bought now don't go to waste.
I for one don't feel comfortable seeing yet another edition coming out. I have just gotten used to (and like more than 3rd edition) the 4th edition rules and game style. It finally made playing every class worth something to play, unlike 3rd editio
. I personally like the dice to help tell the story, even more than just whether I hit or miss. I like the challenge of shaping the narrative according to the dice. This is totally a personal asthetic concern. I understand other most likely prefer more control.
. I personally like the dice to help tell the story, even more than just whether I hit or miss. I like the challenge of shaping the narrative according to the dice. This is totally a personal asthetic concern. I understand other most likely prefer more control.
Dice make crappy story tellers...
Simple solution. Remove the To-Hit and Damage Rolls. Remove saving throws. Remove skill checks. Then you can tell your story exactly the way you want. Let the MD decide if the monster hit or miss. Let him tell his story. No dice to muck it up.
Dice make crappy story tellers...[/quote]Simple solution. Remove the To-Hit and Damage Rolls. Remove saving throws. Remove skill checks. Then you can tell your story exactly the way you want. Let the MD decide if the monster hit or miss. Let him tell
I fear that they may try too hard to "satisfy everybody"
I just hope that doesn't actually morph into "offend nobody" - which is a lot easier but also actually satisfies pretty much nobody.
Unfortunately, I think "offend nobody" is the second most likely possibility - behind "satisfy the people who are already satisfied by 2E and Pathfinder but hate 4E".
I just hope that doesn't actually morph into "offend nobody" - which is a lot easier but also actually satisfies pretty much nobody.Unfortunately, I think "offend nobody" is the second most likely possibility - behind "satisfy the people who are alre
. I personally like the dice to help tell the story, even more than just whether I hit or miss. I like the challenge of shaping the narrative according to the dice. This is totally a personal asthetic concern. I understand other most likely prefer more control.
Dice make crappy story tellers...
Simple solution. Remove the To-Hit and Damage Rolls. Remove saving throws. Remove skill checks. Then you can tell your story exactly the way you want. Let the DM decide if the monster hit or miss. Let him tell his story. No dice to muck it up.
Simple but crappy and assumes its the DMs story... instead of the groups story. Extremes are still just extremes the wider the impact of dice the less like a story and the more "like a mush that has to be fixed" it can become. This is a pattern it does not necessarily mean that a diceless extreme is ideal NOR does it imply DM totalitarian determinism NOR does it imply game play free of mechanics.(see resource management) NOR does free of dice free you from randomness any time you have choices from limited knowledge you have random. Dice can cause unexpected things to happen.. but the coolest unexpected things to happen are when your players suprise you with decisions and ideas.
Oh and yes dice "help" provide inspiration but there are some better sources for that too.
Its certainly subjective ... "do you like craps" or "chess" .. I have a game at home called nightmare chess which inserts random factors in to a regular game of chess. Conversely I like MTG the cards also have randomness... but deck design often hinges around reducing that.
Dice make crappy story tellers...[/quote]Simple solution. Remove the To-Hit and Damage Rolls. Remove saving throws. Remove skill checks. Then you can tell your story exactly the way you want. Let the DM decide if the monster hit or miss. Let him tell
In fact, when I watch players build their characters in 4e it is very different process. In general, everyone is focused on combat tactics alone. Players will say, “Hey why don’t you take this power that grants CA so I can use this power X all the time.” As an old school DM, I want to tell the players to shut it and stop min/maxing, but I can’t because that is just the nature of 4e. Previous editions discouraged this kind of min/maxing, but 4e encourages it.
I saw it happening all the time in AD&D and 3.5E. (Didn't play the in-between editions much.)
In fact, people are now focused on min/maxing the party’s abilities and powers far more than thinking about their characters in role playing terms.
To the extent that I agree that this is true, it's because in 3.5E your abilities and powers didn't really matter (unless you were a caster). However, to get what effectiveness you could as a level-10 fighter, you had to plan most of your feats and equipment around the casters' favored effects. (Still, if two characters synergized to kill more than 10 enemies in one round, they were both casters.)
This kind of behavior makes me laugh. Don't these players realize that as the DM I could kill them at a whim I so chose? Don't they realize that if an encounter is too easy for them, I'll just toss a few more brutes in the mix?
I'm sure they not only realize it, but expect it.
Heroic individuals do heroic things. Heroic teams synergize well to do heroic things that are beyond what they could do individually. Naturally, they need to be presented with suitable challenges where they CAN do such heroic things; the master swordsman does not demonstrate his combat prowess by slicing a cake.
Even the themes and backgrounds you select in 4e have some sort of mechanic benefit to them. In 4e I see players picking backgrounds for the sake of the bonus and not for the sake of role playing the background. This is why in my game I require the players to write a paragraph on their characters mentality, physical description, and history before they play.
I picked my Bard's background for a single specific ability that is the entry benefit. It's pretty powerful for a level-1 character. However it is also part of the source material that is the inspiration for the character, and the theme is easy to fit in.
I loved that character because he was a self sufficient machine.
So why did he hang around with those other guys all the time?
I saw it happening all the time in AD&D and 3.5E. (Didn't play the in-between editions much.)To the extent that I agree that this is true, it's because in 3.5E your abilities and powers didn't really matter (unless you were a caster). However, to get
I fear that they may try too hard to "satisfy everybody"
I just hope that doesn't actually morph into "offend nobody" - which is a lot easier but also actually satisfies pretty much nobody.
Unfortunately, I think "offend nobody" is the second most likely possibility - behind "satisfy the people who are already satisfied by 2E and Pathfinder but hate 4E".
In fact, I really wonder who 5E will be aiming for. Even if they want a modular system, there are choices that must be done, at the conceptual level, and these choices can't be apropriate for every kind of d&d player. Let's take "balance" for instance - you must chose the criteria you will use to balance the game. In 4E, encounter balance was based on the concept that adventurers would, each day, have a given number of encounters, and that the typical encounter would be "equal" to the characters. In other words, the encounter balance was meant for dungeon exploration (and relatively short dungeons of four or five encounters). This created some problems for players/DMs who prefered to have their adventures outside of dungeons - there has been a lot of thread, over the years, on how you could "tweak" the rules for one encounter every few days of travel (or intrigue, or whatever). It also meant that "big" dungeons (either with many, many encounters, or with bigger encounters : reinforcment, really big battles, etc) needed more work - because they were not the typical case the rules were balanced around.
I wonder what choices 5th edition will make. I think they will chose dungeons (probably longer ones) as their "typical day" basis - after all it is the traditional way to play D&D. But "dungeon exploration" is a very specific thing - and more fit for a boardgame than a RPG, I would say... Can the designers create multiple "balancing" options, giving dungeon explorers and more RP/intrigue/anything oriented player the same chances to like the game? Will the game be (as it still is now, in fact) made for a given style of play ?
Another example would be treasures : will 5E keep this rather... strange idea that heroes spend their time counting their gold coins, like in the old days of D&D and in modern MMORPG ? This is an old concept - I don't know many RPGs who are so enamored of the coins you gain, finding magic items, buying this or that and having lots of potions and so many magic items on yourself that you could warp space by sneezing... So will a character be more defined by the things he can do - or the things he has ? This is also a high conceptchoice, and an important one for "balance". And one that can make the game more or less interesting to different people.
The more I think about it, the less I think that "sacred cows" like dungeon exploration, plethora of magic items, dead enemies pocket wiping and so one will be abandoned - they are, after all, what everybody, even those who stopped playing long ago, remember of D&D, to the point of not wanting to play 4E because "D&D? you want to play door-monster-treasure oh look I'm sparky again ? come on... We already have a WoW account for this." So, a D&D for those who always liked these aspects of D&D. I doubt they would try to enlarge the game by making other choices, throwing away the notions of dungeons, item collection, etc and make a "modern" wide-appeal RPG of epic heroes and adventures, and have the "dungeon-side" being one of the added options, not the basis of eveerything else.
Annyway - even these basic design choices are limiting, that's what I waned to say. Balance fighting around a "fight day", or balance each fight as a separate entity, means a completely different game, pleasing to different players... And these choices being the basis on what you are building the very core of the game may make it extremely difficult to introduce other "styles" of play without having to rebuild everything from scratch each time. Well, let's hope they manage to make it...
I just hope that doesn't actually morph into "offend nobody" - which is a lot easier but also actually satisfies pretty much nobody.Unfortunately, I think "offend nobody" is the second most likely possibility - behind "satisfy the people who are alre
I loved that character because he was a self sufficient machine.
So why did he hang around with those other guys all the time?
QFT!
My group has had players from time to time with the attitude that dmgorgon espouses. They were universally considered "trouble players" and all were eventually asked to not come back. Like it or not, D&D is a cooperative game and always has been. Characters who are anit-social, lone wolves, or psychotic are not allow in my campaigns because the game and story isn't about them or how cool they can be individually, it is about the group and how they can work together to overcome challenges.
So why did he hang around with those other guys all the time?[/quote]QFT!My group has had players from time to time with the attitude that dmgorgon espouses. They were universally considered "trouble players" and all were eventually asked to not com
. I personally like the dice to help tell the story, even more than just whether I hit or miss. I like the challenge of shaping the narrative according to the dice. This is totally a personal asthetic concern. I understand other most likely prefer more control.
Dice make crappy story tellers...
Simple solution. Remove the To-Hit and Damage Rolls. Remove saving throws. Remove skill checks. Then you can tell your story exactly the way you want. Let the DM decide if the monster hit or miss. Let him tell his story. No dice to muck it up.
Simple but crappy and assumes its the DMs story... instead of the groups story. Extremes are still just extremes the wider the impact of dice the less like a story and the more "like a mush that has to be fixed" it can become. This is a pattern it does not necessarily mean that a diceless extreme is ideal NOR does it imply DM totalitarian determinism NOR does it imply game play free of mechanics.(see resource management) NOR does free of dice free you from randomness any time you have choices from limited knowledge you have random. Dice can cause unexpected things to happen.. but the coolest unexpected things to happen are when your players suprise you with decisions and ideas.
Oh and yes dice "help" provide inspiration but there are some better sources for that too.
Its certainly subjective ... "do you like craps" or "chess" .. I have a game at home called nightmare chess which inserts random factors in to a regular game of chess. Conversely I like MTG the cards also have randomness... but deck design often hinges around reducing that.
Did you notice that I listed player centric rolls first and said you can tell your story by removing them. Then I listed DM centric rolls and said the DM can tell his story by removing those? Why bold the part about the DM but ignore the same section about the players? My guess is that you assume that I'm pushing some DM centric agenda because that's what you expect, rather than what I wrote. I will admit, I do assume it's kind of up to the DM to be in control of the monsters and how they react in the story. I suppose you COULD leave that up the players, but having the players control the monsters would mostly remove the need for a DM at all.
I find more often than not that the dice make amazing story tellers. My party wanted to try to break down an interdimensional ward on their way to negotiate with some witches and due to some poor dice rolls, ended up inadvertantly opening a dimensional gate that was cycling through different planes. I told them that if they were to enter this gate, they would go to whatever plane it was on when they entered. Elemental Chaos, Shadowfell, Astral Sea or Feywild. This was totally unplanned and improvised. They decided they wanted to jump in. It would have been much better for me if they had simply chosen the Feywild since they also had an unfinished quest that would ultimately lead there. They wanted to roll for it and so we did. They ended up in the Astral Sea and had to find their way home, ultimately through the Shadowfell. It was an amazing blast of an experience all set up because we let the dice tell the story. I never would have thought to do what the dice recommended but I'm thrilled I left myself open to it because it ended up being amazing. Some may struggle with this method but I embrace it.
Dice make crappy story tellers...[/quote]Simple solution. Remove the To-Hit and Damage Rolls. Remove saving throws. Remove skill checks. Then you can tell your story exactly the way you want. Let the DM decide if the monster hit or miss. Let him tell
1. The OGL was a travesty. I hope they don't bring it back, and I don't think they will. 2. The biggest problem I see with modularity is that it isn't just about rules, it's about aesthetics. Different editions of D&D had different aesthetics, and of you look at 1E and 2E the aesthetics set them apart more than anything. As little faith as I have in a modular system being able to appeal to conflicting tastes, it's the aesthetic aspect I expect them to royally fail at.
The GSL was a travesty. The OGL was definitely not a travesty. It was one of the best things to come out of the switch to 3rd edition. Some of the best adventures form 3.0/3.5 era came from 3rd parties which would not have been possible without the OGL. The OGL made possible lots of games such as True20, Savage Worlds, Mutants and Masterminds, and Pathfinder. I cannot conceive how you can make such a statment with a straight face. You are probably in for a dissapointment with 5E because one of the desingers has already said that the lessons learned from the GSL "mistake" will not be forgotten.
The GSL was a travesty. The OGL was definitely not a travesty. It was one of the best things to come out of the switch to 3rd edition. Some of the best adventures form 3.0/3.5 era came from 3rd parties which would not have been possible without th
1. The OGL was a travesty. I hope they don't bring it back, and I don't think they will. 2. The biggest problem I see with modularity is that it isn't just about rules, it's about aesthetics. Different editions of D&D had different aesthetics, and of you look at 1E and 2E the aesthetics set them apart more than anything. As little faith as I have in a modular system being able to appeal to conflicting tastes, it's the aesthetic aspect I expect them to royally fail at.
The GSL was a travesty. The OGL was definitely not a travesty. It was one of the best things to come out of the switch to 3rd edition. Some of the best adventures form 3.0/3.5 era came from 3rd parties which would not have been possible without the OGL. The OGL made possible lots of games such as True20, Savage Worlds, Mutants and Masterminds, and Pathfinder. I cannot conceive how you can make such a statment with a straight face. You are probably in for a dissapointment with 5E because one of the desingers has already said that the lessons learned from the GSL "mistake" will not be forgotten.
Help me understand something. You say great third party adventures would not be possible without the OGL, yet I've played quite a few great third party adventures for 4E. What am I missing?
The GSL was a travesty. The OGL was definitely not a travesty. It was one of the best things to come out of the switch to 3rd edition. Some of the best adventures form 3.0/3.5 era came from 3rd parties which would not have been possible without th
1. The OGL was a travesty. I hope they don't bring it back, and I don't think they will. 2. The biggest problem I see with modularity is that it isn't just about rules, it's about aesthetics. Different editions of D&D had different aesthetics, and of you look at 1E and 2E the aesthetics set them apart more than anything. As little faith as I have in a modular system being able to appeal to conflicting tastes, it's the aesthetic aspect I expect them to royally fail at.
The GSL was a travesty. The OGL was definitely not a travesty. It was one of the best things to come out of the switch to 3rd edition. Some of the best adventures form 3.0/3.5 era came from 3rd parties which would not have been possible without the OGL. The OGL made possible lots of games such as True20, Savage Worlds, Mutants and Masterminds, and Pathfinder. I cannot conceive how you can make such a statment with a straight face. You are probably in for a dissapointment with 5E because one of the desingers has already said that the lessons learned from the GSL "mistake" will not be forgotten.
Savage Worlds is not OGL. It has nothing to do with d20 at all.
The GSL was a travesty. The OGL was definitely not a travesty. It was one of the best things to come out of the switch to 3rd edition. Some of the best adventures form 3.0/3.5 era came from 3rd parties which would not have been possible without th
there are many things i would like to see in 5e. perhaps foremost in my mind is a desire for 5e to be free of the handcuffs endured by prior editions with respect to errata. if something needs correcting, no matter how significant the fix, then correct it. i don't want to hear that the fix would alienate those who purchased the book containing the original material to be corrected. also, adding alternatives is fine, so long as it it not intended as a substitute for fixing something that needs fixing. i imagine that this could be accomplished by shifting the focus from printed material as primary source to digital material as primary source.
there are many things i would like to see in 5e. perhaps foremost in my mind is a desire for 5e to be free of the handcuffs endured by prior editions with respect to errata. if something needs correcting, no matter how significant the fix, then cor
. I personally like the dice to help tell the story, even more than just whether I hit or miss. I like the challenge of shaping the narrative according to the dice. This is totally a personal asthetic concern. I understand other most likely prefer more control.
Dice make crappy story tellers...
Simple solution. Remove the To-Hit and Damage Rolls. Remove saving throws. Remove skill checks. Then you can tell your story exactly the way you want. Let the DM decide if the monster hit or miss. Let him tell his story. No dice to muck it up.
Simple but crappy and assumes its the DMs story... instead of the groups story. Extremes are still just extremes the wider the impact of dice the less like a story and the more "like a mush that has to be fixed" it can become. This is a pattern it does not necessarily mean that a diceless extreme is ideal NOR does it imply DM totalitarian determinism NOR does it imply game play free of mechanics.(see resource management) NOR does free of dice free you from randomness any time you have choices from limited knowledge you have random. Dice can cause unexpected things to happen.. but the coolest unexpected things to happen are when your players suprise you with decisions and ideas.
Oh and yes dice "help" provide inspiration but there are some better sources for that too.
Its certainly subjective ... "do you like craps" or "chess" .. I have a game at home called nightmare chess which inserts random factors in to a regular game of chess. Conversely I like MTG the cards also have randomness... but deck design often hinges around reducing that.
Did you notice that I listed player centric rolls first and said you can tell your story by removing them. Then I listed DM centric rolls and said the DM can tell his story by removing those? Why bold the part about the DM but ignore the same section about the players? My guess is that you assume that I'm pushing some DM centric agenda because that's what you expect, rather than what I wrote.
You did remove the player rolls sure but I didnt read any of the "you" as being player, a lot of people seem to assume that when dice are removed things decay to DM fiat a very D&D oriented assumption (but which is kind of backed up by ADRPG which is heavily governed that way) since their has been quite a history of things like just about everything currently governed by skill checks being a DM fiat. I actually assumed you were saying that reduction of dice significance is DM slanted and that was why it wasnt desireable.
Dice make crappy story tellers...[/quote]Simple solution. Remove the To-Hit and Damage Rolls. Remove saving throws. Remove skill checks. Then you can tell your story exactly the way you want. Let the DM decide if the monster hit or miss. Let him tell
. I personally like the dice to help tell the story, even more than just whether I hit or miss. I like the challenge of shaping the narrative according to the dice. This is totally a personal asthetic concern. I understand other most likely prefer more control.
Dice make crappy story tellers...
Simple solution. Remove the To-Hit and Damage Rolls. Remove saving throws. Remove skill checks. Then you can tell your story exactly the way you want. Let the DM decide if the monster hit or miss. Let him tell his story. No dice to muck it up.
Simple but crappy and assumes its the DMs story... instead of the groups story. Extremes are still just extremes the wider the impact of dice the less like a story and the more "like a mush that has to be fixed" it can become. This is a pattern it does not necessarily mean that a diceless extreme is ideal NOR does it imply DM totalitarian determinism NOR does it imply game play free of mechanics.(see resource management) NOR does free of dice free you from randomness any time you have choices from limited knowledge you have random. Dice can cause unexpected things to happen.. but the coolest unexpected things to happen are when your players suprise you with decisions and ideas.
Oh and yes dice "help" provide inspiration but there are some better sources for that too.
Its certainly subjective ... "do you like craps" or "chess" .. I have a game at home called nightmare chess which inserts random factors in to a regular game of chess. Conversely I like MTG the cards also have randomness... but deck design often hinges around reducing that.
Did you notice that I listed player centric rolls first and said you can tell your story by removing them. Then I listed DM centric rolls and said the DM can tell his story by removing those? Why bold the part about the DM but ignore the same section about the players? My guess is that you assume that I'm pushing some DM centric agenda because that's what you expect, rather than what I wrote.
You did remove the player rolls sure but I didnt read any of the "you" as being player, a lot of people seem to assume that when dice are removed things decay to DM fiat a very D&D oriented assumption (but which is kind of backed up by ADRPG which is heavily governed that way) since their has been quite a history of things like just about everything currently governed by skill checks being a DM fiat. I actually assumed you were saying that reduction of dice significance is DM slanted and that was why it wasnt desireable.
In my games, I create villains and their motivations and the rest is pretty much collaborative. Even my villains are often based on the back stories of the players.
The point was just that if you think dice are not good story tellers, to remove them, then the story can be what everyone wants. I like letting the dice tell the story. It's one of the best ways to really surprise everyone (including the DM). The trick is to make sure that any options the dice have to tell the story are interesting ones. I drive to D&D every weekend and I'm excited to find out what will happen and where the story will go. Because I honestly have no idea. Between giving the players a lot of narrative power and giving the dice a lot as well, its truly a mystery for me, the DM. I'm forced to react (as the NPCs) to what happens each night just like the players are.
Dice make crappy story tellers...[/quote]Simple solution. Remove the To-Hit and Damage Rolls. Remove saving throws. Remove skill checks. Then you can tell your story exactly the way you want. Let the DM decide if the monster hit or miss. Let him tell
. I personally like the dice to help tell the story, even more than just whether I hit or miss. I like the challenge of shaping the narrative according to the dice. This is totally a personal asthetic concern. I understand other most likely prefer more control.
Dice make crappy story tellers...
Simple solution. Remove the To-Hit and Damage Rolls. Remove saving throws. Remove skill checks. Then you can tell your story exactly the way you want. Let the DM decide if the monster hit or miss. Let him tell his story. No dice to muck it up.
Simple but crappy and assumes its the DMs story... instead of the groups story. Extremes are still just extremes the wider the impact of dice the less like a story and the more "like a mush that has to be fixed" it can become. This is a pattern it does not necessarily mean that a diceless extreme is ideal NOR does it imply DM totalitarian determinism NOR does it imply game play free of mechanics.(see resource management) NOR does free of dice free you from randomness any time you have choices from limited knowledge you have random. Dice can cause unexpected things to happen.. but the coolest unexpected things to happen are when your players suprise you with decisions and ideas.
Oh and yes dice "help" provide inspiration but there are some better sources for that too.
Its certainly subjective ... "do you like craps" or "chess" .. I have a game at home called nightmare chess which inserts random factors in to a regular game of chess. Conversely I like MTG the cards also have randomness... but deck design often hinges around reducing that.
Did you notice that I listed player centric rolls first and said you can tell your story by removing them. Then I listed DM centric rolls and said the DM can tell his story by removing those? Why bold the part about the DM but ignore the same section about the players? My guess is that you assume that I'm pushing some DM centric agenda because that's what you expect, rather than what I wrote.
You did remove the player rolls sure but I didnt read any of the "you" as being player, a lot of people seem to assume that when dice are removed things decay to DM fiat a very D&D oriented assumption (but which is kind of backed up by ADRPG which is heavily governed that way) since their has been quite a history of things like just about everything currently governed by skill checks being a DM fiat. I actually assumed you were saying that reduction of dice significance is DM slanted and that was why it wasnt desireable.
In my games, I create villains and their motivations and the rest is pretty much collaborative. Even my villains are often based on the back stories of the players.
The point was just that if you think dice are not good story tellers, to remove them, then the story can be what everyone wants. I like letting the dice tell the story. It's one of the best ways to really surprise everyone (including the DM).
Player choices all ways seem to me to be the best suprises.. dice are not that expressive
The trick is to make sure that any options the dice have to tell the story are interesting ones. I drive to D&D every weekend and I'm excited to find out what will happen and where the story will go. Because I honestly have no idea. Between giving the players a lot of narrative power and giving the dice a lot as well, its truly a mystery for me, the DM. I'm forced to react (as the NPCs) to what happens each night just like the players are.
Shrug the players part I will agree with.. in rpgs the more the dice did well the less it seemed to make sense. DragonQuest had horrible spell failure system (... call it what it is huge and warty - nice flavors but way too easy to fail you are playing a young clueless apprentice) If you had a spell caster dice might make big difference on the turn of a battle but it was just dumb luck fluke not because of the choices of the protagonists.
Its like using dice to determine wandering monsters.. or floor plans, big meh. I remember the meandering pointless tunnels with monsters there because the dice said so... dice have been used as a short cut tool in place of thinking an aweful lot.
Dice make crappy story tellers...[/quote]Simple solution. Remove the To-Hit and Damage Rolls. Remove saving throws. Remove skill checks. Then you can tell your story exactly the way you want. Let the DM decide if the monster hit or miss. Let him tell
"Its like using dice to determine wandering monsters.. or floor plans, big meh. I remember the meandering pointless tunnels with monsters there because the dice said so... dice have been used as a short cut tool in place of thinking an aweful lot."
You may be the unluckiest person in the world. Talk about DM's, you're afraid of bad ones...because it sounds like that's all you had. Talk about dice, you're afraid they'll do something bad because they did something bad in the past. I think I probably don't use dice the way you do/did when it was so horrible. I've never had these horrible experiences. You must be a magnet for "suck" or something because almost everything you run into is somehow the worst possible incarnation of it.
"Its like using dice to determine wandering monsters.. or floor plans, big meh.I remember the meandering pointless tunnels with monsters there because the dice said so... dice have been used as a short cut tool in place of thinking an aweful lot."You
"Its like using dice to determine wandering monsters.. or floor plans, big meh. I remember the meandering pointless tunnels with monsters there because the dice said so... dice have been used as a short cut tool in place of thinking an aweful lot."
You may be the unluckiest person in the world. Talk about DM's, you're afraid of bad ones...because it sounds like that's all you had.
Became a DM so that I didnt have to deal with problems like a DM that wouldnt let my Cleric of Odin carry a spear (same damage as a staff but because the flavor text didnt match that of the cleric).. I did actually get ummm turned off on being a "player" because of it... this latest is perhaps the first edition of D&D I have been excited to do that.
Talk about dice, you're afraid they'll do something bad because they did something bad in the past. I think I probably don't use dice the way you do/did when it was so horrible. I've never had these horrible experiences. You must be a magnet for "suck" or something because almost everything you run into is somehow the worst possible incarnation of it.
Hey I never ran in to an explicitly Monty Haul DM? Though I did meet players whos characters had bags of holding with multiples of ALL the items from the DMG.
Became a DM so that I didnt have to deal with problems like a DM that wouldnt let my Cleric of Odin carry a spear (same damage as a staff but because the flavor text didnt match that of the cleric).. I did actually get ummm turned off on being a "pla
Since it's the story which pulls players in, and not just a collection of XP, GP, magic items, and abilities, wouldn't WotC's money be better spent giving DM lessons at fantasy gaming stores across the country? Just set your goal to be to train 10,000 young DM's over the next 3 years, and watch your book sales surge. I know this is kind of a lateral suggestion, but the 4e books are actually pretty good.
We really need a new rules system like we need another hole in our heads. Ok, the alignment system from AD&D 1.0 was FINE and didn't need to be changed; some DM's used alignment more, others used it less, which is how we customize our campaigns to our party's style of play. By and large, I've been impressed with 4e's materials. I just haven't bought many adventures because I prefer to tell my own stories. But dang I own a lot of 4e books. Too many to carry to gaming night, hence my investment in an iPad and PDF copies of said books. THAT'S the reality - players need their tools with them in an electronic form.
Alas, the online character builder produces AWFUL character sheets. This is the biggest complaint from my thursday night group, aside from how combat drags on forever with 7th-level and above characters, reduced to at-wills after the first several rounds. We're willing to forgo new powers from the online content in order to use the old XP-compatible character builder, whose character sheet layout was pretty near perfect.
Since it's the story which pulls players in, and not just a collection of XP, GP, magic items, and abilities, wouldn't WotC's money be better spent giving DM lessons at fantasy gaming stores across the country? Just set your goal to be to train 10,00
My absolute greatest fear for this edition, for lack of a better place to express my sentiment (and lack of desire to read this thread to chime in with a QFT) is the apparent suggestion of crowdsourced design.
A lot of people here are good at emulating and approximating effects within the context of established rules but as far as game system design goes the vast majority of players are incredibly shortsighted. It only sounds worse than it is, if everybody could design a game what would we be buying D&D for, right?
My absolute greatest fear for this edition, for lack of a better place to express my sentiment (and lack of desire to read this thread to chime in with a QFT) is the apparent suggestion of crowdsourced design.A lot of people here are good at emulatin
Example: I think 4e magic items are terrible. Not only are they boring, but they failed at one of their own design goals which was to make character building less reliant on magic. Instead they made character building intimately tied and dependent on magic items. I would like to see a return in philosophy to 1e/2e D&D, in that I would like to see magic items as unnecessary and very special "gifts" to the players. Keeping the 4e ideas of making sure items don't break game balance, and having levels and rarity is great too. I definitely like the 4e artifacts and concordance rules. I would also like to see magic item scaling. Elric didn't throw away Stormbringer as he progressed in experience and power, characters shouldn't either.
I keep seeing this as a theme in this thread. Our weekly group also held the 4e magic item requirements to be one of the top things that we felt needed to be addressed.
I'd be curious to hear from people who liked how it was done in 4E give some reasons. I'm interested to know if this is something that can be solved with a modular approach. Not everything can but a most things can as far as I can tell. I wonder if this is an outlier.
Hmmmm, I'm not going to say that I exactly 'liked the way it was done', but I think there are things about the way it has been perceived that are odd. For one thing MANY of the items really are not much different from their incarnations in earlier editions. Take the Flaming Weapon that is in IIRC the PHB1. It is basically identical to the old 1e flametongue. The mechanics are virtually identical give or take a 4e-ism (IE there's no list of specific creatures it does extra damage against because we have keywords and vulnerabilities now, which takes care of that). Yet I recall a whole thread where someone complained bitterly about how 'bland' it was. What accounts for that? The item isn't any different, so that points to something else.
Another thing is people talking about "having to throw away your weapon to upgrade", yet AV1 contained complete rules for auto-updating weapons (and it was frankly such an obvious concept that most of the people I know who play had already invented exactly the same procedure anyway). Somehow it seems like 4e presented MANY things like this, but in practically all cases they just sort of sat by the wayside while people lament the lack of the very things they brought to the table. Again, what accounts for that?
The core oddity here though is the oddity of "not knowing what we were wishing for". Many people said they wanted items to be non-critical. 4e basically delivered that. Again, DMG2 provided a systematic rule that made them UTTERLY optional, but fundamentally items don't play much of a role in 4e characters. Yeah, you have some plusses you need, but that's trivial, in essence just built in bonus progression. What did people THINK would happen if items were optional? Obviously they couldn't be big dramatic things that have a big effect on the game or else they'd HAVE to be factored into the PCs power progression. The game would have to either assume you had them or assume you didn't. The very 'blandness' that people complain about is the result of getting what people wished for.
I don't know what factor it is about the organization, presentation, player mindset, or whatever other factor it is, but there is a real theme here. Somehow there's a gap in perception that isn't crossed with this particular game. The horrible part is when you start to really dissect the game and analyze what it is and what you would do, you don't find much. Its hard to actually come to grips with what separates the actuality of the game from what people see.
I keep seeing this as a theme in this thread. Our weekly group also held the 4e magic item requirements to be one of the top things that we felt needed to be addressed.[/quote]I'd be curious to hear from people who liked how it was done in 4E give s
Example: I think 4e magic items are terrible. Not only are they boring, but they failed at one of their own design goals which was to make character building less reliant on magic. Instead they made character building intimately tied and dependent on magic items. I would like to see a return in philosophy to 1e/2e D&D, in that I would like to see magic items as unnecessary and very special "gifts" to the players. Keeping the 4e ideas of making sure items don't break game balance, and having levels and rarity is great too. I definitely like the 4e artifacts and concordance rules. I would also like to see magic item scaling. Elric didn't throw away Stormbringer as he progressed in experience and power, characters shouldn't either.
I keep seeing this as a theme in this thread. Our weekly group also held the 4e magic item requirements to be one of the top things that we felt needed to be addressed.
I'd be curious to hear from people who liked how it was done in 4E give some reasons. I'm interested to know if this is something that can be solved with a modular approach. Not everything can but a most things can as far as I can tell. I wonder if this is an outlier.
Hmmmm, I'm not going to say that I exactly 'liked the way it was done', but I think there are things about the way it has been perceived that are odd. For one thing MANY of the items really are not much different from their incarnations in earlier editions. Take the Flaming Weapon that is in IIRC the PHB1. It is basically identical to the old 1e flametongue. The mechanics are virtually identical give or take a 4e-ism (IE there's no list of specific creatures it does extra damage against because we have keywords and vulnerabilities now, which takes care of that). Yet I recall a whole thread where someone complained bitterly about how 'bland' it was. What accounts for that? The item isn't any different, so that points to something else.
Another thing is people talking about "having to throw away your weapon to upgrade", yet AV1 contained complete rules for auto-updating weapons (and it was frankly such an obvious concept that most of the people I know who play had already invented exactly the same procedure anyway). Somehow it seems like 4e presented MANY things like this, but in practically all cases they just sort of sat by the wayside while people lament the lack of the very things they brought to the table. Again, what accounts for that?
The core oddity here though is the oddity of "not knowing what we were wishing for". Many people said they wanted items to be non-critical. 4e basically delivered that. Again, DMG2 provided a systematic rule that made them UTTERLY optional, but fundamentally items don't play much of a role in 4e characters. Yeah, you have some plusses you need, but that's trivial, in essence just built in bonus progression. What did people THINK would happen if items were optional? Obviously they couldn't be big dramatic things that have a big effect on the game or else they'd HAVE to be factored into the PCs power progression. The game would have to either assume you had them or assume you didn't. The very 'blandness' that people complain about is the result of getting what people wished for.
I don't know what factor it is about the organization, presentation, player mindset, or whatever other factor it is, but there is a real theme here. Somehow there's a gap in perception that isn't crossed with this particular game. The horrible part is when you start to really dissect the game and analyze what it is and what you would do, you don't find much. Its hard to actually come to grips with what separates the actuality of the game from what people see.
Well, I think the simple answer is that people see what they want to see and don't see contraindications. That much is probably certain. They're looking for something to complain about in many cases (not all, but many).
But I think you speak to a bigger issue. Do you think it's possible that the very thing people wanted (speaking generally about alot of the improvements in 4E, but also specifically about the magic item implimentation) ended up making the game less desirable for them?
Also, not to nitpick and I've certainly never made this complaint, but the 1E Flametongue was significantly cooler than the Flaming Weapon. And very different mechanically.
1. It could burst into flame on a secret command word or phrase and be used as an everburning torch. The 4E Flaming Weapon....not so much. The flavor text mentions something like this but the only corresponding mechanic is for typing the damage. No out of combat utility is mentioned. (As a DM, I would allow it but I've seen this very thing not allowed in a public play scenario) 2. It also had a FOUR stage gradient of bonus to hit and damage, depending on what you were attacking. The 4E version has a single static to hit bonus regardless of whether or not the enemy has the vulnerable fire keyword. So, whereas the flametongue increases your ability to hit the baddies who don't like fire, the Flaming Weapon does not. In this regard, the wielder of a flametongue loves nothing better than to seek out those who don't like fire, because he would be MUCH more likely to hit them. The 4E Flaming Weapon has none of that feel. 3. The Flametongue was a CONSTANT ignite risk, meaning it could always cause ongoing fire damage (assuming the wielder had instructed it to ignite), whenever it came into contact with something that could burn, including enemies. The Flaming Weapon can only set an enemy on fire (cause ongoing fire) damage once per day.
Again, I'd never think to complain about this because, well, who cares, but honestly, the Flame Tongue is way cooler.
Just sayin.
I keep seeing this as a theme in this thread. Our weekly group also held the 4e magic item requirements to be one of the top things that we felt needed to be addressed.[/quote]I'd be curious to hear from people who liked how it was done in 4E give s
"Its like using dice to determine wandering monsters.. or floor plans, big meh. I remember the meandering pointless tunnels with monsters there because the dice said so... dice have been used as a short cut tool in place of thinking an aweful lot."
You may be the unluckiest person in the world. Talk about DM's, you're afraid of bad ones...because it sounds like that's all you had. Talk about dice, you're afraid they'll do something bad because they did something bad in the past. I think I probably don't use dice the way you do/did when it was so horrible. I've never had these horrible experiences. You must be a magnet for "suck" or something because almost everything you run into is somehow the worst possible incarnation of it.
Nothing is perfect. I will toss around a couple dice just to see what they tell me, and I don't think randomness is always a BAD way to spark some creativity. OTOH I know where garthanos is coming from too. I ignore as many die rolls that the rules say should mean X as I do toss a die to decide something for me. Dice are good when you need to decide something like a hit because nobody is impartial about it. Other times its more of a mixed bag. I can riff though, maybe not everyone can. I can just close my eyes and start with whatever comes to mind and half the time it totally surprises me already, and its usually fun. Anyway, we're all a bit different so its cool if there are a variety of tools for tapping into the old imagination. I know a lot of people that love all the old 1e DMG tables. I used a few of them here and there, but not a lot.
Nothing is perfect. I will toss around a couple dice just to see what they tell me, and I don't think randomness is always a BAD way to spark some creativity. OTOH I know where garthanos is coming from too. I ignore as many die rolls that the rules s
Well, I think the simple answer is that people see what they want to see and don't see contraindications. That much is probably certain. They're looking for something to complain about in many cases (not all, but many).
But I think you speak to a bigger issue. Do you think it's possible that the very thing people wanted (speaking generally about alot of the improvements in 4E, but also specifically about the magic item implimentation) ended up making the game less desirable for them?
Also, not to nitpick and I've certainly never made this complaint, but the 1E Flametongue was significantly cooler than the Flaming Weapon. And very different mechanically.
1. It could burst into flame on a secret command word or phrase and be used as an everburning torch. The 4E Flaming Weapon....not so much. The flavor text mentions something like this but the only corresponding mechanic is for typing the damage. No out of combat utility is mentioned. (As a DM, I would allow it but I've seen this very thing not allowed in a public play scenario) 2. It also had a FOUR stage gradient of bonus to hit and damage, depending on what you were attacking. The 4E version has a single static to hit bonus regardless of whether or not the enemy has the vulnerable fire keyword. So, whereas the flametongue increases your ability to hit the baddies who don't like fire, the Flaming Weapon does not. In this regard, the wielder of a flametongue loves nothing better than to seek out those who don't like fire, because he would be MUCH more likely to hit them. The 4E Flaming Weapon has none of that feel. 3. The Flametongue was a CONSTANT ignite risk, meaning it could always cause ongoing fire damage (assuming the wielder had instructed it to ignite), whenever it came into contact with something that could burn, including enemies. The Flaming Weapon can only set an enemy on fire (cause ongoing fire) damage once per day.
Again, I'd never think to complain about this because, well, who cares, but honestly, the Flame Tongue is way cooler.
Just sayin.
I don't know about looking for things to complain about. I think people just don't very often know how to articulate things. I don't think they very often analyze what it is that's bothering them. I think 4e magic item implementation shows a few things. First of all, while the leveling items were a logical concept, it just added a lot of clutter. In some ways it was good, but there were too many items that weren't really all that different. Clearly enhancement bonus should just go away. I doubt it will, but it really should. There should be less items, like with powers, the more you have the less distinctive each one is. Less can be more. If 4e has a cardinal sin it is just too cluttered with minor variations of things.
There are no really significant differences in mechanics between the 4e flaming weapon and the flametongue though. The '4 gradients' was unworkable because it listed a small list of specific monsters that Gary happened to think of when he wrote it down, and the chances you actually were fighting that monster was pretty slim. Having that many distinctions wasn't all that useful anyway, the "its flammable or it isn't" approach in the 4e version works because splitting hairs just isn't that distinctive. The difference between a +2 and a +3 is to piddly to be worth all the trouble that looking it up every time was worth.
I also don't understand why you discount the flavor text in 4e, yet basically the same flavor text in the 1e version is 'cool'. Of course fire sheds light, there's no way you can have fire that doesn't do that, the OD&D "Monsters & Treasure" description of a flametongue didn't mention light either IIRC and nobody had any problems realizing that fire sheds light or else you couldn't see it at all... I honestly don't recall anyone ever using any of the command word rules. Nothing would suck more than getting a magic item and having the DM tell you that you didn't know the command word, lol. It could be story hook, but here again is a difference that I liked with 4e, it didn't dictate that kind of story thing. You use a minor action to ignite it, well, what are you doing with that minor action? Its up to the players/DM to decide. Again, saying some command phrase should be such an obvious possibility it really doesn't need to be spelled out. Also, the whole thing with doing more damage isn't a 'one time thing' with 4e either, all your attacks are fire attacks, so anything vulnerable to fire always takes fire damage. It is just a more robust way to do the same thing as the 1e version, and the 'damage boost' power is a whole extra bennie, you can do extra damage to ANYTHING once a day/encounter (whichever it is).
Anyway, it illustrates something that I observe a lot these days. People seem to need every little thing spelled out. The most amazingly obvious things, like 'fire makes light' or 'you can upgrade an item and call it a treasure parcel' seem to escape people. I don't know if there was something different in the water back in the day or what, lol.
I don't know about looking for things to complain about. I think people just don't very often know how to articulate things. I don't think they very often analyze what it is that's bothering them. I think 4e magic item implementation shows a few thin
The whole "everything for everybody" approach is going to be very difficult to achieve and playtesting has the potential to be a giant mess unless it's handled properly.
I disagree. After reading through this forum, I've come to the realization that WotC can NEVER reconcile the hurt feelings after players spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a game system, only to see it scrapped in 3 years. No matter how much Pathfinder codpiece you kiss, you're not getting those players back - they've already made their investment in a new system. The ONLY path for WotC's continued success is to bring new players to the game - which points back to my suggestion earlier today: don't focus on rules, focus on teaching DM's to be better storytellers.
Since so many people complain about the "flavor" missing from 4e magic items, is it the DM's fault for not building a story around these items? or WotC's fault for putting magic items in the Players' Handbook, and expecting them to be handed out with the frequency of Pez candy?
The BEST thing I've gotten from attending DDXP and GenCon is to play many, many games of 4e with different DM's of all stripes and colors. In one game, my DM and I were a party that got TPK'd. The DM for that game apologized, but all 6 players at the table THANKED HIM for running an awesome game that kept us on the seat of our pants. It encouraged my DM to take the kid gloves off and throw trickier challenges at our party. [At higher levels, some DM's stop using minions. This is a mistake. Push your players to their boundaries. Be fair, not mean, and force them to use their heads to think through situations so it's not just a splatterfest]
You can have a fun time playing any edition of D&D. The most important thing to remember is that this is a GAME and you're supposed to have fun. With my group of experienced gamers (half of us are in our 40's) we've spent entire evenings roleplaying with 4e rules, yet never needing to roll dice for a single encounter. Not all new players and DM's could do this, I'm certain, but since we're all working together to create interesting characters and even more interesting stories, I'm not sure how changing something as unimportant as the ruleset would encourage us to play more D&D or buy more books. This has taught me that the thing D&D needs most is not new books and a new system of rules for us to learn. No, we need more DM's who understand how to bring their friends together, or even strangers, and teach them how to ROLE PLAY. Don't forget that the 4e book Players Strategy Guide talks not just about min/maxing your characters, but about using your imagination and creativity.
And feel free to tack on the Wil Wheaton quote: DON'T BE A (substitute name for Richard). That's a message that far too many gamers don't take to heart (along with the positive effects of the regular use of soap).
I disagree. After reading through this forum, I've come to the realization that WotC can NEVER reconcile the hurt feelings after players spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a game system, only to see it scrapped in 3 years. No matter how much P
Do you think it's possible that the very thing people wanted (speaking generally about alot of the improvements in 4E, but also specifically about the magic item implimentation) ended up making the game less desirable for them?
This is really exactly what happened. 4e is a necessary iteration in game development that consists basically of smashing everything in the face with a bat until it's balanced. Lots of people don't like the extremely even-keel gameplay that results at this stage. The good news is that the next step is to return to step 1 and add more flavorful features back in now that the base is nice and balanced.
Psychology shows again and again that humans are tremendously bad at predicting what we want, it wouldn't be surprising at all if that's the case here and I think it almost certainly is.
This is really exactly what happened. 4e is a necessary iteration in game development that consists basically of smashing everything in the face with a bat until it's balanced. Lots of people don't like the extremely even-keel gameplay that results a
Well, I think the simple answer is that people see what they want to see and don't see contraindications. That much is probably certain. They're looking for something to complain about in many cases (not all, but many).
But I think you speak to a bigger issue. Do you think it's possible that the very thing people wanted (speaking generally about alot of the improvements in 4E, but also specifically about the magic item implimentation) ended up making the game less desirable for them?
Also, not to nitpick and I've certainly never made this complaint, but the 1E Flametongue was significantly cooler than the Flaming Weapon. And very different mechanically.
1. It could burst into flame on a secret command word or phrase and be used as an everburning torch. The 4E Flaming Weapon....not so much. The flavor text mentions something like this but the only corresponding mechanic is for typing the damage. No out of combat utility is mentioned. (As a DM, I would allow it but I've seen this very thing not allowed in a public play scenario) 2. It also had a FOUR stage gradient of bonus to hit and damage, depending on what you were attacking. The 4E version has a single static to hit bonus regardless of whether or not the enemy has the vulnerable fire keyword. So, whereas the flametongue increases your ability to hit the baddies who don't like fire, the Flaming Weapon does not. In this regard, the wielder of a flametongue loves nothing better than to seek out those who don't like fire, because he would be MUCH more likely to hit them. The 4E Flaming Weapon has none of that feel. 3. The Flametongue was a CONSTANT ignite risk, meaning it could always cause ongoing fire damage (assuming the wielder had instructed it to ignite), whenever it came into contact with something that could burn, including enemies. The Flaming Weapon can only set an enemy on fire (cause ongoing fire) damage once per day.
Again, I'd never think to complain about this because, well, who cares, but honestly, the Flame Tongue is way cooler.
Just sayin.
I don't know about looking for things to complain about. I think people just don't very often know how to articulate things. I don't think they very often analyze what it is that's bothering them. I think 4e magic item implementation shows a few things. First of all, while the leveling items were a logical concept, it just added a lot of clutter. In some ways it was good, but there were too many items that weren't really all that different. Clearly enhancement bonus should just go away. I doubt it will, but it really should. There should be less items, like with powers, the more you have the less distinctive each one is. Less can be more. If 4e has a cardinal sin it is just too cluttered with minor variations of things.
There are no really significant differences in mechanics between the 4e flaming weapon and the flametongue though. The '4 gradients' was unworkable because it listed a small list of specific monsters that Gary happened to think of when he wrote it down, and the chances you actually were fighting that monster was pretty slim. Having that many distinctions wasn't all that useful anyway, the "its flammable or it isn't" approach in the 4e version works because splitting hairs just isn't that distinctive. The difference between a +2 and a +3 is to piddly to be worth all the trouble that looking it up every time was worth.
I also don't understand why you discount the flavor text in 4e, yet basically the same flavor text in the 1e version is 'cool'. Of course fire sheds light, there's no way you can have fire that doesn't do that, the OD&D "Monsters & Treasure" description of a flametongue didn't mention light either IIRC and nobody had any problems realizing that fire sheds light or else you couldn't see it at all... I honestly don't recall anyone ever using any of the command word rules. Nothing would suck more than getting a magic item and having the DM tell you that you didn't know the command word, lol. It could be story hook, but here again is a difference that I liked with 4e, it didn't dictate that kind of story thing. You use a minor action to ignite it, well, what are you doing with that minor action? Its up to the players/DM to decide. Again, saying some command phrase should be such an obvious possibility it really doesn't need to be spelled out. Also, the whole thing with doing more damage isn't a 'one time thing' with 4e either, all your attacks are fire attacks, so anything vulnerable to fire always takes fire damage. It is just a more robust way to do the same thing as the 1e version, and the 'damage boost' power is a whole extra bennie, you can do extra damage to ANYTHING once a day/encounter (whichever it is).
Anyway, it illustrates something that I observe a lot these days. People seem to need every little thing spelled out. The most amazingly obvious things, like 'fire makes light' or 'you can upgrade an item and call it a treasure parcel' seem to escape people. I don't know if there was something different in the water back in the day or what, lol.
"There are no really significant differences in mechanics between the 4e flaming weapon and the flametongue though. The '4 gradients' was unworkable because it listed a small list of specific monsters that Gary happened to think of when he wrote it down, and the chances you actually were fighting that monster was pretty slim. "
I would call a weapon with a static +1 vs. EVERYTHING and another weapon with +1, +2, +3, +4 vs. a varied list of creatures pretty significant.
If you want to say it was unworkable (I disagree) that's one thing. BUt to say they're not different, well, that's just not true.
A "flaming" weapon that can cause ongoing fire damage once per day and one that can do it constantly is also a pretty significant mechanical difference IMO.
I don't know about looking for things to complain about. I think people just don't very often know how to articulate things. I don't think they very often analyze what it is that's bothering them. I think 4e magic item implementation shows a few thin
The whole "everything for everybody" approach is going to be very difficult to achieve and playtesting has the potential to be a giant mess unless it's handled properly.
I disagree. After reading through this forum, I've come to the realization that WotC can NEVER reconcile the hurt feelings after players spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a game system, only to see it scrapped in 3 years. No matter how much Pathfinder codpiece you kiss, you're not getting those players back - they've already made their investment in a new system. The ONLY path for WotC's continued success is to bring new players to the game - which points back to my suggestion earlier today: don't focus on rules, focus on teaching DM's to be better storytellers.
The BEST thing I've gotten from attending DDXP and GenCon is to play many, many games of 4e with different DM's of all stripes and colors. In one game, my DM and I were a party that got TPK'd. The DM for that game apologized, but all 6 players at the table THANKED HIM for running an awesome game that kept us on the seat of our pants. It encouraged my DM to take the kid gloves off and throw trickier challenges at our party. [At higher levels, some DM's stop using minions. This is a mistake. Push your players to their boundaries. Be fair, not mean, and force them to use their heads to think through situations so it's not just a splatterfest]
You can have a fun time playing any edition of D&D. The most important thing to remember is that this is a GAME and you're supposed to have fun. With my group of experienced gamers (half of us are in our 40's) we've spent entire evenings roleplaying with 4e rules, yet never needing to roll dice for a single encounter. Not all new players and DM's could do this, I'm certain, but since we're all working together to create interesting characters and even more interesting stories, I'm not sure how changing something as unimportant as the ruleset would encourage us to play more D&D or buy more books. This has taught me that the thing D&D needs most is not new books and a new system of rules for us to learn. No, we need more DM's who understand how to bring their friends together, or even strangers, and teach them how to ROLE PLAY. Don't forget that the 4e book Players Strategy Guide talks not just about min/maxing your characters, but about using your imagination and creativity.
And feel free to tack on the Wil Wheaton quote: DON'T BE A ****. That's a message that far too many gamers don't take to heart (along with the positive effects of the regular use of soap).
Yeah, I think there's little prospect of a sudden mid-edition edition roll gaining WotC a huge amount of cred with people that aren't happy with them already and ARE happy with another game. This is going to be an expensive proposition for them. I think the worst part on that side is a LOT of people play both games, but all of a sudden there's little motivation for those people to buy more stuff from WotC, so they automatically turned into Paizo customers instead of customers of both companies.
I can't help feeling like a 'retro' D&D at this point is a sort of 'tombstone edition' too. Go back to the old ways and you have a game that AT BEST gets to appeal to the old crowd, which was already a shrinking group that doesn't sustain the game. Make yet another new game and what's the advantage of that over the existing 4e variation of that, which already peeved many grognards? I'd have to say with the die already cast go for as modern a game as you can and at least you have the prospect of the new generation of players. If they really hammer one out that's a 10 in every respect, well maybe at least it will be the game of choice going forward and you can hope a lot of your old customers will drift back. I certainly hope it is a largely forward-looking game. I already have all the old editions, lol.
Training new DMs... Well, yeah, but you have to have the old DMs around to train the new DMs. That's the way it really mostly happens.
I disagree. After reading through this forum, I've come to the realization that WotC can NEVER reconcile the hurt feelings after players spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a game system, only to see it scrapped in 3 years. No matter how much P
" If they really hammer one out that's a 10 in every respect, well maybe at least it will be the game of choice going forward and you can hope a lot of your old customers will drift back."
I think this is the thinking at WotC. I think it was also the thinking with Essentials, but they maybe didn't give it enough time.
I also think they see the retroclone craze and realize that 4E was, first and foremost, not bringing in ENOUGH new blood to offset all those people getting back into the game and NOT choosing modern D&D. If they can make a game that does a better job at bringing in new blood AND doesn't actively reject the retro folks, they'll have a winner. Tough job? Very much so. Worth shooting for? I think so.
" If they really hammer one out that's a 10 in every respect, well maybe at least it will be the game of choice going forward and you can hope a lot of your old customers will drift back."I think this is the thinking at WotC. I think it was also the
I would call a weapon with a static +1 vs. EVERYTHING and another weapon with +1, +2, +3, +4 vs. a varied list of creatures pretty significant.
If you want to say it was unworkable (I disagree) that's one thing. BUt to say they're not different, well, that's just not true.
A "flaming" weapon that can cause ongoing fire damage once per day and one that can do it constantly is also a pretty significant mechanical difference IMO.
The 'varied list' of creatures though was only a small fixed list of creatures, all from the MM since that was all that existed at the time. It isn't that it was "unworkable", it was just damned awkward because you had to look up the list every time (or write it all on your sheet, but why should the PC know which was which). The difference between +1 and +4 is fairly noticable, but the difference between +1 and +2 is trivial and unlikely to be noticed at the table, it should have been just one list that got +4 and if that was too much then the question was why use that mechanic? In practice it just wasn't a big deal.
Except again, the 1e flametongue didn't do ongoing damage, such a thing didn't exist in 1e. The 4e version and the 1e version do the same thing. They do extra damage against any creature that is susceptable to fire, except the 1e 'susceptable' was a hard-coded list that wasn't shared with other almost identical things and the 4e version is a keyed list that works how you would expect (IE just because a creature took extra damage from a flametongue why doesn't it take extra damage from a fireball too, it was an inconsistent mechanic). So the mechanics are actually not different in any way that is really meaningful at the table. In fact the 4e weapon does things that the 1e version doesn't (turns any attack made with it to fire and can do an extra burst of damage plus ongoing damage once a day).
So again, there's a lot of perception that really doesn't match up with the reality. 4e magic items are mostly no more 'bland' than the 1e ones. They are simply presented in a consistent way that actually makes sense, and obvious things are assumed not to need to be restated. Again, the point is that people's perceptions don't particularly match up with the reality of the thing. Really I see the main difference as 1e had maybe 10 distinct magic weapons total, 4e has who knows how many, but it is a lot. I can only assume that more is less. That's my experience anyway. As a DM I find most of these variations of weapons to be just noise I have to filter out. Many of them are fine items, but I just don't need anything like the number that exist and with a short iconic list the players are more likely to be excited by getting an iconic item.
The same thing goes with powers in particular. Again, practically every spell you can find in your 2e PHB spell lists exists in 4e (and we have a lot of unique ones in 4e too). Yet the perception is 'blandness'. The problem IMHO is just when you have 500 wizard spells they tend to just blur together. I think each class should have more like 50 powers. Compress the game down to 18 levels, that gets rid of the need for so many levels of powers, then make most powers scale so you don't need to have 10 of basically the same thing, and you now get to have 50 really distinctive looking things that covers most of what the 500 powers did before. Making sure they all have the old-fashioned names won't hurt either, but I suspect Mike will figure that out for himself. That was one thing I really failed to understand with 4e, why they insisted on ditching classic names for both items and powers. That made no sense.
The 'varied list' of creatures though was only a small fixed list of creatures, all from the MM since that was all that existed at the time. It isn't that it was "unworkable", it was just damned awkward because you had to look up the list every time
What's stopping new people from liking the old rules? The answer is nothing so I don't understand the point that was made.
It's like you have to be from the mid 70's to 80's to be able to enjoy the rules. I know for a fact that this isn't true because I've had some young people really dig 2nd edition D&D.
Remember this, what may be old and familiar to you is actually something new and exciting to someone that has never seen it before.
What's stopping new people from liking the old rules? The answer is nothing so I don't understand the point that was made. It's like you have to be from the mid 70's to 80's to be able to enjoy the rules. I know for a fact that this isn't true becaus
I would call a weapon with a static +1 vs. EVERYTHING and another weapon with +1, +2, +3, +4 vs. a varied list of creatures pretty significant.
If you want to say it was unworkable (I disagree) that's one thing. BUt to say they're not different, well, that's just not true.
A "flaming" weapon that can cause ongoing fire damage once per day and one that can do it constantly is also a pretty significant mechanical difference IMO.
The 'varied list' of creatures though was only a small fixed list of creatures, all from the MM since that was all that existed at the time. It isn't that it was "unworkable", it was just damned awkward because you had to look up the list every time (or write it all on your sheet, but why should the PC know which was which). The difference between +1 and +4 is fairly noticable, but the difference between +1 and +2 is trivial and unlikely to be noticed at the table, it should have been just one list that got +4 and if that was too much then the question was why use that mechanic? In practice it just wasn't a big deal.
Except again, the 1e flametongue didn't do ongoing damage, such a thing didn't exist in 1e. The 4e version and the 1e version do the same thing. They do extra damage against any creature that is susceptable to fire, except the 1e 'susceptable' was a hard-coded list that wasn't shared with other almost identical things and the 4e version is a keyed list that works how you would expect (IE just because a creature took extra damage from a flametongue why doesn't it take extra damage from a fireball too, it was an inconsistent mechanic). So the mechanics are actually not different in any way that is really meaningful at the table. In fact the 4e weapon does things that the 1e version doesn't (turns any attack made with it to fire and can do an extra burst of damage plus ongoing damage once a day).
So again, there's a lot of perception that really doesn't match up with the reality. 4e magic items are mostly no more 'bland' than the 1e ones. They are simply presented in a consistent way that actually makes sense, and obvious things are assumed not to need to be restated. Again, the point is that people's perceptions don't particularly match up with the reality of the thing. Really I see the main difference as 1e had maybe 10 distinct magic weapons total, 4e has who knows how many, but it is a lot. I can only assume that more is less. That's my experience anyway. As a DM I find most of these variations of weapons to be just noise I have to filter out. Many of them are fine items, but I just don't need anything like the number that exist and with a short iconic list the players are more likely to be excited by getting an iconic item.
The same thing goes with powers in particular. Again, practically every spell you can find in your 2e PHB spell lists exists in 4e (and we have a lot of unique ones in 4e too). Yet the perception is 'blandness'. The problem IMHO is just when you have 500 wizard spells they tend to just blur together. I think each class should have more like 50 powers. Compress the game down to 18 levels, that gets rid of the need for so many levels of powers, then make most powers scale so you don't need to have 10 of basically the same thing, and you now get to have 50 really distinctive looking things that covers most of what the 500 powers did before. Making sure they all have the old-fashioned names won't hurt either, but I suspect Mike will figure that out for himself. That was one thing I really failed to understand with 4e, why they insisted on ditching classic names for both items and powers. That made no sense.
Ok, it seems you don't actually know which weapon I'm talking about. It's the 1E flametongue in the DMG. I can't cite the page number as I'm at work, but I'd guess around 150 is where the swords were.
It most definitely wasn't "a small fixed list of creatures, all from the MM since that was all that existed at the time."
Unless you consider Undead a "a small fixed list of creatures". Because that's what it was +4 against. It was +2 against regenerating creatures and +3 against avian or cold using creatures (perhaps swap those because my memory is weak on which was +2 and which was +3). You write that on your sheet and done. Nothing to remember. Very workable.
And I have no idea where the rules would be but you could definitely set things on fire and there was damage they would take until they could put it out. I'm thinking 1d2 or 1d4 per round. I believe it was 1d6 in 3E. Naturally there was no "reflex save" or attack vs. fortitude in 1E. Once they were on fire, they would burn until they would roll on the ground or jump in some water or whatever. But it existed, it just hadn't been "4e-ized" as you say.
There's also definite mechanical difference between being able to set something on fire whenever you want and ongoing fire damage once per day.
I'll not belabor this any more than we have. If you want to ignore the litany of differences, or handwave them as being unworkable, that's fine with me. I can't argue with that kind of response. But again, I think this is all academic, since it doesn't really matter one way or the other unless for some reason you have a rabid love of your 1E flametongue, which apparently somebody did. Personally, I was a Frost Brand kind of guy. +3/+6 vs. Fire Using/Dwelling creatures. Now that I think about it, I really do think the conditional extra +x to hit is pretty evocative. I like it and I can see why some might miss it if they actually gave it some thought (which I hadn't until just now).
The 'varied list' of creatures though was only a small fixed list of creatures, all from the MM since that was all that existed at the time. It isn't that it was "unworkable", it was just damned awkward because you had to look up the list every time
What's stopping new people from liking the old rules? The answer is nothing so I don't understand the point that was made.
It's like you have to be from the mid 70's to 80's to be able to enjoy the rules. I know for a fact that this isn't true because I've had some young people really dig 2nd edition D&D.
Remember this, what may be old and familiar to you is actually something new and exciting to someone that has never seen it before.
The thinking is that because so many people have played them for so long and realize how "broken" they are that they couldn't possibly entice anyone new to play the game unless they were as dumb and rudimentary as everyone was in the 70s. At least that's the impression I get. Shrug.
My personal opinion is that the original Red Box is just as enticing to a 10 year old today as it was 30 years ago. I say this simply because I've used it to introduce the game to new 10 year olds and it still works like a charm every single time. The 4E learning curve and heavy mechanical underpinnings make it less friendly to young newbies, but it's certainly not bad. I think any edition going forward absolutely MUST be child friendly. All the hardcore players I know picked up the game in their youth. I think that is a key demo for new players. I think you're less likely to get new 25 year olds playing the game.
The thinking is that because so many people have played them for so long and realize how "broken" they are that they couldn't possibly entice anyone new to play the game unless they were as dumb and rudimentary as everyone was in the 70s. At least th
My personal opinion is that the original Red Box is just as enticing to a 10 year old today as it was 30 years ago. I say this simply because I've used it to introduce the game to new 10 year olds and it still works like a charm every single time. The 4E learning curve and heavy mechanical underpinnings make it less friendly to young newbies, but it's certainly not bad. I think any edition going forward absolutely MUST be child friendly. All the hardcore players I know picked up the game in their youth. I think that is a key demo for new players. I think you're less likely to get new 25 year olds playing the game.
What's stopping new people from liking the old rules? The answer is nothing so I don't understand the point that was made.
It's like you have to be from the mid 70's to 80's to be able to enjoy the rules. I know for a fact that this isn't true because I've had some young people really dig 2nd edition D&D.
Remember this, what may be old and familiar to you is actually something new and exciting to someone that has never seen it before.
The thinking is that because so many people have played them for so long and realize how "broken" they are that they couldn't possibly entice anyone new to play the game unless they were as dumb and rudimentary as everyone was in the 70s. At least that's the impression I get. Shrug.
My personal opinion is that the original Red Box is just as enticing to a 10 year old today as it was 30 years ago.
A ten year old today may have been playing WoW for 4 years and just got Skyrim for Xmas I think they have utterly different expectations and paradigms.
The thinking is that because so many people have played them for so long and realize how "broken" they are that they couldn't possibly entice anyone new to play the game unless they were as dumb and rudimentary as everyone was in the 70s. At least th
What's stopping new people from liking the old rules? The answer is nothing so I don't understand the point that was made.
It's like you have to be from the mid 70's to 80's to be able to enjoy the rules. I know for a fact that this isn't true because I've had some young people really dig 2nd edition D&D.
Remember this, what may be old and familiar to you is actually something new and exciting to someone that has never seen it before.
The thinking is that because so many people have played them for so long and realize how "broken" they are that they couldn't possibly entice anyone new to play the game unless they were as dumb and rudimentary as everyone was in the 70s. At least that's the impression I get. Shrug.
My personal opinion is that the original Red Box is just as enticing to a 10 year old today as it was 30 years ago.
A ten year old today may have been playing WoW for 4 years and just got Skyrim for Xmas I think they have utterly different expectations and paradigms.
And yet original red box still works like a charm with modern 10 year olds. There must be something in there that goes deeper than mechanics.
And really, playing WoW since the age of 6. Really?
The thinking is that because so many people have played them for so long and realize how "broken" they are that they couldn't possibly entice anyone new to play the game unless they were as dumb and rudimentary as everyone was in the 70s. At least th
What's stopping new people from liking the old rules? The answer is nothing so I don't understand the point that was made.
It's like you have to be from the mid 70's to 80's to be able to enjoy the rules. I know for a fact that this isn't true because I've had some young people really dig 2nd edition D&D.
Remember this, what may be old and familiar to you is actually something new and exciting to someone that has never seen it before.
The thinking is that because so many people have played them for so long and realize how "broken" they are that they couldn't possibly entice anyone new to play the game unless they were as dumb and rudimentary as everyone was in the 70s. At least that's the impression I get. Shrug.
My personal opinion is that the original Red Box is just as enticing to a 10 year old today as it was 30 years ago.
A ten year old today may have been playing WoW for 4 years and just got Skyrim for Xmas I think they have utterly different expectations and paradigms.
And yet original red box still works like a charm with modern 10 year olds. There must be something in there that goes deeper than mechanics.
And really, playing WoW since the age of 6. Really?
D&D 4e is the first D&D my kids have known as far as playing with anything but freeform My daughter plays WoW sometimes now (she is six) and my son is 14
When I was three I didnt watch Legalos slide down pallasades on a borrowed shield or Arragorn engage in the Warlord throws the Dwarf. or try to learn to play Chess because Harry Potter did it.
The distinctions are presentational I think and is the wizard casting a spell and going to sleep afterwards ... those dont exactly jive with somebody whos magical hero is harry potter and who saw Legalos using a behemoth as a jungle gym.
The thinking is that because so many people have played them for so long and realize how "broken" they are that they couldn't possibly entice anyone new to play the game unless they were as dumb and rudimentary as everyone was in the 70s. At least th
What's stopping new people from liking the old rules? The answer is nothing so I don't understand the point that was made.
It's like you have to be from the mid 70's to 80's to be able to enjoy the rules. I know for a fact that this isn't true because I've had some young people really dig 2nd edition D&D.
Remember this, what may be old and familiar to you is actually something new and exciting to someone that has never seen it before.
The thinking is that because so many people have played them for so long and realize how "broken" they are that they couldn't possibly entice anyone new to play the game unless they were as dumb and rudimentary as everyone was in the 70s. At least that's the impression I get. Shrug.
My personal opinion is that the original Red Box is just as enticing to a 10 year old today as it was 30 years ago.
A ten year old today may have been playing WoW for 4 years and just got Skyrim for Xmas I think they have utterly different expectations and paradigms.
And yet original red box still works like a charm with modern 10 year olds. There must be something in there that goes deeper than mechanics.
And really, playing WoW since the age of 6. Really?
D&D 4e is the first D&D my kids have known as far as playing with anything but freeform My daughter plays WoW sometimes now (she is six) and my son is 14
When I was three I didnt watch Legalos slide down pallasades on a borrowed shield or Arragorn engage in the Warlord throws the Dwarf. or try to learn to play Chess because Harry Potter did it.
The distinctions are presentational I think and is the wizard casting a spell and going to sleep afterwards ... those dont exactly jive with somebody whos magical hero is harry potter and who saw Legalos using a behemoth as a jungle gym.
So why do you suppose it still works so well?
The thinking is that because so many people have played them for so long and realize how "broken" they are that they couldn't possibly entice anyone new to play the game unless they were as dumb and rudimentary as everyone was in the 70s. At least th
What's stopping new people from liking the old rules? The answer is nothing so I don't understand the point that was made.
It's like you have to be from the mid 70's to 80's to be able to enjoy the rules. I know for a fact that this isn't true because I've had some young people really dig 2nd edition D&D.
Remember this, what may be old and familiar to you is actually something new and exciting to someone that has never seen it before.
The thinking is that because so many people have played them for so long and realize how "broken" they are that they couldn't possibly entice anyone new to play the game unless they were as dumb and rudimentary as everyone was in the 70s. At least that's the impression I get. Shrug.
My personal opinion is that the original Red Box is just as enticing to a 10 year old today as it was 30 years ago.
A ten year old today may have been playing WoW for 4 years and just got Skyrim for Xmas I think they have utterly different expectations and paradigms.
That's what I was going to say. It is true that 2e is no less potentially enjoyable today than it was 15 years ago, but A) it is a different world where people have slightly different ideas about what is fun and cool, and B) there are just much better games that have come out in the meantime. Why play 2e when you can play 4e, or maybe some OSR clone that cleans up the rules vastly? You can get pretty much the same gameplay and there is a lot greater variety of rules that competently create interesting gameplay than there were back in the old days.
That doesn't mean you can't do a good game that is very similar to an older game, there are plenty of them, but there'd be little point in just putting out Red Box Basic again as it was then. It might sell OK to old players that started with it in the day, but a more contemporary version, if done right, will be better for new players.
The thinking is that because so many people have played them for so long and realize how "broken" they are that they couldn't possibly entice anyone new to play the game unless they were as dumb and rudimentary as everyone was in the 70s. At least th
Because children play differently than adults. They ignore, misinterpret, and or alter rules that they find unintuitive and have a different relationship with the rules framework. I can virtually guarentee that anyone here who taught themselves D&D at a young age played with a very different ruleset than the one that's in the books.
Because children play differently than adults. They ignore, misinterpret, and or alter rules that they find unintuitive and have a different relationship with the rules framework. I can virtually guarentee that anyone here who taught themselves D&D a
Because children play differently than adults. They ignore, misinterpret, and or alter rules that they find unintuitive and have a different relationship with the rules framework. I can virtually guarentee that anyone here who taught themselves D&D at a young age played with a very different ruleset than the one that's in the books.
But I'm the one teaching it to them. I've been playing RPGs for 30 years.
Because children play differently than adults. They ignore, misinterpret, and or alter rules that they find unintuitive and have a different relationship with the rules framework. I can virtually guarentee that anyone here who taught themselves D&D a
i see, so the redbox works well when you have someone who's been doing it for 30 years teaching you. i can see some bias but honestly, do you think they would play the game in the assumed fashion with full understanding of the rules without you guiding them?
i know i didn't back then. i played "2nd ed D&D" but i can assure that i wasn't using the ruleset in the books, or at least not the one presented. then again, we didn't have someone to teach us. we had 5 kids in the boonies with a set of 2nd hand books. our understanding was mostly "roll dice, bullshit numbers, fight monsters".
only when i played again did i realize i was doing it wrong and that's probably why i was having fun.
on the flipside, we all took to videogames quickly. i played the atari & NES as early as 3-4 at my aunt's place while being babysat. i got my SNES in what... '91? '92? still works too. the gist of the fantasy i grew up on was zelda, dragon warrior, mario, megaman and multiple final fantasies. i gobbled up as many RPGs as i could in the SNES & PS1 era of gaming.
on the flipside, D&Ds mechanics were pretty horrible compartively. we played D&D because it allowed a greater freedom to explore, not because the mechanics were stellar.
a decent GM can make a decent experience with most systems. i can play 3.0/3.5/pathfinder and whatnot and have fun with the group, but i won't say the session was fun because of the system. it was fun because of the group. i generally find the 3rd ed system and it's direct derivatives more of a chore then anything, especially since i could have fun with the same group, but with less of a hassle due to the system.
as i said before, if not on this forum, but another: 4th ed is the first edition of D&D i feel comfortable running without having to feel the need to rip it apart & re-assemble it just to make it useable.
just because you can have fun doesn't mean the system is good. i've heard people could have fun with FATAL. i know i had fun when i was a kid with a sword made out of 2 planks and few rusty nails. all it mean is that humans who want to have fun can find ways to distract themselves with the tools they have at hand.
it doesn't say anything about the quality of the tools.
i see, so the redbox works well when you have someone who's been doing it for 30 years teaching you. i can see some bias but honestly, do you think they would play the game in the assumed fashion with full understanding of the rules without you guidi
i see, so the redbox works well when you have someone who's been doing it for 30 years teaching you. i can see some bias but honestly, do you think they would play the game in the assumed fashion with full understanding of the rules without you guiding them?
i know i didn't back then. i played "2nd ed D&D" but i can assure that i wasn't using the ruleset in the books, or at least not the one presented. then again, we didn't have someone to teach us. we had 5 kids in the boonies with a set of 2nd hand books. our understanding was mostly "roll dice, bullshit numbers, fight monsters".
only when i played again did i realize i was doing it wrong and that's probably why i was having fun.
on the flipside, we all took to videogames quickly. i played the atari & NES as early as 3-4 at my aunt's place while being babysat. i got my SNES in what... '91? '92? still works too. the gist of the fantasy i grew up on was zelda, dragon warrior, mario, megaman and multiple final fantasies. i gobbled up as many RPGs as i could in the SNES & PS1 era of gaming.
on the flipside, D&Ds mechanics were pretty horrible compartively. we played D&D because it allowed a greater freedom to explore, not because the mechanics were stellar.
a decent GM can make a decent experience with most systems. i can play 3.0/3.5/pathfinder and whatnot and have fun with the group, but i won't say the session was fun because of the system. it was fun because of the group. i generally find the 3rd ed system and it's direct derivatives more of a chore then anything, especially since i could have fun with the same group, but with less of a hassle due to the system.
as i said before, if not on this forum, but another: 4th ed is the first edition of D&D i feel comfortable running without having to feel the need to rip it apart & re-assemble it just to make it useable.
just because you can have fun doesn't mean the system is good. i've heard people could have fun with FATAL. i know i had fun when i was a kid with a sword made out of 2 planks and few rusty nails. all it mean is that humans who want to have fun can find ways to distract themselves with the tools they have at hand.
it doesn't say anything about the quality of the tools.
I've been letting them read the books by themselves and then i run the game. If they have questions, I answer them. For the most part, I just kind of sit back and watch it happen. It's been a real eye opener. They seem to really get it. After all the forums I've read, one would think such a thing is impossible. I think the biggest key isn't good or bad mechanics, but a simply LACK of mechanics. There just aren't a lot of rules. Resolution is based on telling a story more often than not. The imagination of the child seems to be the limiting factor and to my surprise, those kids that are heavily influenced by Harry Potter and the likes of Skyrim seem to really run with it. I think it may be a case of "less is more".
"just because you can have fun doesn't mean the system is good."
Also, I don't know what to think about this really. I think any system that is easy to learn and lends itself to an entertaining experience is "good" on some level.
I've been letting them read the books by themselves and then i run the game. If they have questions, I answer them. For the most part, I just kind of sit back and watch it happen. It's been a real eye opener. They seem to really get it. After all the
After reading this thread, and listening to some podcasts with a bunch of DM's discussing this, I just had an awful notion:
coupled with the collapse of the economy and decreasing entertainment budgets, WotC's corporate overlords at Hasbro likely have very wrong ideas about how much money the D&D franchise must generate to be a profitable business. Yes, WotC may be hoping to lure back players who left for Pathfinder, but this move (announcement in the NYTimes, killing 4e sales for the next 2 years until 5e comes out) is both bold and desperate. WotC must be losing tons of business to make such a bold move. And the more I think about it, the more I realize that it's a fools' quest.
recall how 4e was designed to use minis, and WotC had a miniatures game that kind of went along with the plastic prepainted minis. then wizkids went broke, and a couple of years later, WotC killed the minis line. This must in some way be related to the fact that Americans have less disposable income than ever - who's going to buy a bunch of collectible crap if you're worried about losing your job?
also note that Borders went out of business, and Barnes & Noble has been on the ropes, fighting vs. Amazon for their lives. and yet not a single D&D book is available for the Kindle -- I think the screen is too small on the Kindle for reading but there are those who disagree. Sure, D&D torrents of PDF's abound - cutting into WotC sales and forcing them to make dumbed-down paperbacks like the Essentials collection (tougher to scan to PDF if it's got double the number of pages and won't lay down flat on a scanner). part of this move to 5e MUST be the result of dwindling sales and corporate pressure, although I'm just making calculated guesses here.
if WotC wants to make a modular version of D&D that appeals to different players, they need to improve their web support and start making apps for the iPhone and Android. These apps should include in-app content purchases. That way you buy a Basic Players' Handbook for $10 or whatever for your iPad, then if you want specialty classes like the monk, or paragon tier powers, you need to buy the downloadable content for $1 or whatever. They could still sell collections of powers for a discount (Every Martial Class! Every Shadow Spell! Rare armor and weapons!) and because this content would be digitally distributed, it would allow WotC to exit the paper publishing market gracefully, gaining the profits from sales and digital distribution without the hassles of printing, distribution, and difficult guesswork such as calculating how many books they need to print. As an additional benefit, they wouldn't have to worry about licensing content because all downloadable content is only sold through their app, and controlled through whatever review process that they have internally. As a result, they need not worry about losing app sales to a D20-style "cloning" scheme.
Note that I _love_ my iPad and bring it to every gaming session. I have PDFs of the books I've bought to make referencing the rules easy during gaming sessions - also to save on the backbreaking work of lugging 25 lbs of books to nerd night. Not every gamer has or wants an iPad, and for some, that will be a real turn-off. But this is where the entertainment industry is headed for music, movies, and yes, BOOKS. You can't stuff the genie back into the bottle - if WotC doesn't move to a digital world, then Paizo or some other enterprising company will.
After reading this thread, and listening to some podcasts with a bunch of DM's discussing this, I just had an awful notion: coupled with the collapse of the economy and decreasing entertainment budgets, WotC's corporate overlords at Hasbro likely hav
After reading this thread, and listening to some podcasts with a bunch of DM's discussing this, I just had an awful notion:
coupled with the collapse of the economy and decreasing entertainment budgets, WotC's corporate overlords at Hasbro likely have very wrong ideas about how much money the D&D franchise must generate to be a profitable business. Yes, WotC may be hoping to lure back players who left for Pathfinder, but this move (announcement in the NYTimes, killing 4e sales for the next 2 years until 5e comes out) is both bold and desperate. WotC must be losing tons of business to make such a bold move. And the more I think about it, the more I realize that it's a fools' quest.
recall how 4e was designed to use minis, and WotC had a miniatures game that kind of went along with the plastic prepainted minis. then wizkids went broke, and a couple of years later, WotC killed the minis line. This must in some way be related to the fact that Americans have less disposable income than ever - who's going to buy a bunch of collectible crap if you're worried about losing your job?
also note that Borders went out of business, and Barnes & Noble has been on the ropes, fighting vs. Amazon for their lives. and yet not a single D&D book is available for the Kindle -- I think the screen is too small on the Kindle for reading but there are those who disagree. Sure, D&D torrents of PDF's abound - cutting into WotC sales and forcing them to make dumbed-down paperbacks like the Essentials collection (tougher to scan to PDF if it's got double the number of pages and won't lay down flat on a scanner). part of this move to 5e MUST be the result of dwindling sales and corporate pressure, although I'm just making calculated guesses here.
if WotC wants to make a modular version of D&D that appeals to different players, they need to improve their web support and start making apps for the iPhone and Android. These apps should include in-app content purchases. That way you buy a Basic Players' Handbook for $10 or whatever for your iPad, then if you want specialty classes like the monk, or paragon tier powers, you need to buy the downloadable content for $1 or whatever. They could still sell collections of powers for a discount (Every Martial Class! Every Shadow Spell! Rare armor and weapons!) and because this content would be digitally distributed, it would allow WotC to exit the paper publishing market gracefully, gaining the profits from sales and digital distribution without the hassles of printing, distribution, and difficult guesswork such as calculating how many books they need to print. As an additional benefit, they wouldn't have to worry about licensing content because all downloadable content is only sold through their app, and controlled through whatever review process that they have internally. As a result, they need not worry about losing app sales to a D20-style "cloning" scheme.
Note that I _love_ my iPad and bring it to every gaming session. I have PDFs of the books I've bought to make referencing the rules easy during gaming sessions - also to save on the backbreaking work of lugging 25 lbs of books to nerd night. Not every gamer has or wants an iPad, and for some, that will be a real turn-off. But this is where the entertainment industry is headed for music, movies, and yes, BOOKS. You can't stuff the genie back into the bottle - if WotC doesn't move to a digital world, then Paizo or some other enterprising company will.
"part of this move to 5e MUST be the result of dwindling sales"
Ahem.....no kidding. You think? Of course, if 4E was selling well enough, they've never can it early. They'd let it continue. It must really be doing poorly for them to whack it off at the knees the way they are.
But I'm not sure selling the d&d equivalent of horse armor is the way to do. I like the idea of microtransactions, but not for materials like this.
"part of this move to 5e MUST be the result of dwindling sales"Ahem.....no kidding. You think? Of course, if 4E was selling well enough, they've never can it early. They'd let it continue. It must really be doing poorly for them to whack it off at t
Note that I _love_ my iPad and bring it to every gaming session. I have PDFs of the books I've bought to make referencing the rules easy during gaming sessions - also to save on the backbreaking work of lugging 25 lbs of books to nerd night. Not every gamer has or wants an iPad, and for some, that will be a real turn-off. But this is where the entertainment industry is headed for music, movies, and yes, BOOKS. You can't stuff the genie back into the bottle - if WotC doesn't move to a digital world, then Paizo or some other enterprising company will.
There is a place for both print and digital media in DnD. I wouldn't mind some sort of e-version of the book being available from a code you get when you purchase the print book (the way 4E was originally designed to do), but I also want print books. You mentioned Paizo, Paizo sales both PDF and print books and their print books by all accounts sell well also. I realize you are a fan of digital books, but I don't think your paradigm should be forced on everyone with no other option available for DnD.
Yes, digital media has become more popular that being said, I can still go to Amazon and order a print book to come to my home. If not Barnes and Noble I can go to a good number of bookstore (independent and used book stores as well as larger conglomerates) and purchase print books. Comic books have a digital copy, but by and large the industry sales paper comics because overall that is what fans prefer, etc so you saying because you love your ipad that DnD should be strictly digital I disagree with.
I think there is room for both print and digital and honestly I don't see WOTC going this direction for 5E. I do think they might try to do what they did with 4E though and have a code in the books that releases a digital copy after you purchased the print one.
Peace, Fallstorm
There is a place for both print and digital media in DnD. I wouldn't mind some sort of e-version of the book being available from a code you get when you purchase the print book (the way 4E was originally designed to do), but I also want print books.
Paper books are heading the way of the dinosaurs, not quickly but it's happening.
IMO, a dedicated app for tablets and computers is the most logical way to go, speaking about mylocal gaming groups, we would have bough more books if they were PDFs and the books we did buy quickly became out of date with all the erretas.
If WotC open a store with linked products from it and 3rd party developers (I.e you buy a book with new fighter powers and it's added automatically to your player handbook) with a quick and easy way to receive new books and advantures and more importantly the ability to admit them to your own use they will have a gold mine.
Each book should have a code for a copy of the book in the app and there should also be the ability to buy the books in the app itself.
Warder
Paper books are heading the way of the dinosaurs, not quickly but it's happening.IMO, a dedicated app for tablets and computers is the most logical way to go, speaking about mylocal gaming groups, we would have bough more books if they were PDFs and
Maybe because what's important with D&D is not the rules, the game system itself, but the mood, the athmosphere. What your heroes do, and not the fact that they roll D20s, have an AC, a class and a level, etc. I began playing at age 12, and, though I very fast learned to hate the AD&D rule set (there were better rules elsewhere) I still have fond memories of the light hearted heroic "tales" we lived at this time. That is the magic of D&D. Not specific rules or implementations.
Maybe because what's important with D&D is not the rules, the game system itself, but the mood, the athmosphere. What your heroes do, and not the fact that they roll D20s, have an AC, a class and a level, etc.I began playing at age 12, and, though I
Paper books are heading the way of the dinosaurs, not quickly but it's happening....If WotC open a store with linked products from it and 3rd party developers
My point was if WotC is worried about money, then having a digital content management system can cut out 3rd party developers from integrating their products with WotC's as easily as they have been using paper.
If 4e sales are slipping, why? Because they put out far too much material for any one gaming group to use. After the PHB2, there was less and less that we needed/wanted, and the books started having much fewer pages, making them not such a great value.
Perhaps they should put out a "second printing" of the 4e PHB and DMG that include the errata. There's no way my group is going to keep track of all the changes they've made.
If someone doesn't like 4e, they're free to keep playing 3rd or 2nd or AD&D. Or Skyrim or Wow or Dragon Age or yes, even Pathfinder. I don't see how making an "inclusive version" could possibly work. This comic says it best: art.penny-arcade.com/photos/i-xTWHDNT/0/...
My point was if WotC is worried about money, then having a digital content management system can cut out 3rd party developers from integrating their products with WotC's as easily as they have been using paper.If 4e sales are slipping, why? Because t
My personal opinion is that the original Red Box is just as enticing to a 10 year old today as it was 30 years ago.
The updated Red Box was a great idea for 4e, although it should have been available at launch. But there's no reason they couldn't put some marketing dollars behind pushing the new Red Box every Christmas season. How many years did we play Basic D&D or AD&D without even dreaming of a new iteration of D&D? To quote a DM from a podcast I listened to, it feels like WotC is throwing 4e under a bus, which is what the lovers of 3e/3.5 said just a few years ago. No, I'm not buying a new version of D&D every 5 years. That's crazy and doesn't make sense.
The updated Red Box was a great idea for 4e, although it should have been available at launch. But there's no reason they couldn't put some marketing dollars behind pushing the new Red Box every Christmas season. How many years did we play Basic D&D
I'd like D&D 5.0, or whatever it's named, to look a lot like Star Wars Saga Edition. Seriously if you haven't played it you should. Think a it as a simple and elegant blend of 3.5, and 4.0. It has D20 modern style talents and D&D3.5 style classes, prestige classes. Healing, movement, skills and defenses are closer to 4.0, but the AC and Ref rolled into 1 (armor adds onto ref, but limits the dex bonus, armor can also boost fortitude defense), and the 4th defense is damage threshold (fortitude defense + misc extra, basically a feat that increases damage threshold but not fortitude defense) tied to a condition track that melds almost all the various conditions into a single entity, think of it as being similar to being "bloodied" in D&D 4.0 but with a bit more granularity. Many people who've played SAGA says that the damage threshold plus condition track is the single best game mechanic in ANY system they've EVER played. Combat is fast because you generally get one attack per round unless you spend feats, and area attacks use a single attack and damage roll for all targets in the area of effect.
The Force power system is a good deal different than either D&D 3.5 or D&D 4.0 spell casting. In D&D terms, a lot of minor "magic" (D&D 4.0 at-wills) are free. But you have to spend feats to get "spell" slots for significant stuff (say a fireball), and you get 1+attribute modifer "spells" per feat. You get your entire "spell" suite back each encounter or by rolling a natural 20 on"use magic" check" within an encounter. You can get one "spell" (of your choice) back mid encounter by spending an "action point." With a slight modification you could get daily, encounter, and at-will spells with the same feat, with one spell slot being one spell slot; dailies would be more powerful and wouldn't come back each encounter, and at-wills can be used as many times as you like. This would cleanly solve the "problem" of having different levels of spells, now there's only 3, and running out of spells in a day. And if you like you could add in D&D 4.0 style rituals as a 4th category.
Oh and SAGA has backgrounds similar to D&D 4.0 (I think Rodney borrowed the idea from 4.0). Star Wars SAGA edition made Rodney Thompson (the lead designer) is my all time rpg hero! Gary Gygax is a very distant second. And if you're looking for examples of brilliance in game design, the rules for swarms, squads, and mass combat are well, elegantly simple and ingenius. Collections of individuals are melded into a single larger entity with simple rules on how to modify the base stats of an individual to get them. All Hail King Rodney, Long Live the King! Oh and I'm sure that with lessons learned, Rodney Thompson could iron out the few wrinkles left in the rule set.
I'd like D&D 5.0, or whatever it's named, to look a lot like Star Wars Saga Edition. Seriously if you haven't played it you should. Think a it as a simple and elegant blend of 3.5, and 4.0. It has D20 modern style talents and D&D3.5 style classes,
I had a lot of fun too.
or try to learn to play Chess because Harry Potter did it.
