This is just a general thread about fourth edition now that it's official it's coming out. First off, do you like or hate the idea of fourth edition? And as it comes out and we all find more information on it, what do you like about it and what do you hate about it?
Personally, I liked third edition. 3.5 wasn't needed. It was an improvement on many parts, but it wasn't anything anybody who could DM couldn't think up on his or her own.
But oh well. 3.5 became the standard, and it gradually became worse and worse with the addition of useless splatbooks (IMO we had more splatbooks in 3.5 than we've had in any edition thus far). And 4th edition, it could be to fix 3.5 and make it look better OR it could be to screw things up even more. Honestly, as much as things are screwed up now, I don't think it's worth the risk to possibly make it worse.
However, even though I have serious doubts that 4th edition won't be anything but awful, I still hope it turns out good. I think we don't need it, but that doesn't matter considering we're getting it anyways. So all I can do is hope.
Fourth Edition Rants and Praises!
-
Siberys
- Posts: 6207
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 7:16 pm
- Location: I live in that one place with the thing
- Contact:
Fourth Edition Rants and Praises!
Listen up maggots, Mr. Popo's 'bout to teach you the pecking order.
It goes you, the dirt, the worms inside of the dirt, Popo's stool, Kami, then Popo.
~Mr. Popo, Dragonball Z Abridged
It goes you, the dirt, the worms inside of the dirt, Popo's stool, Kami, then Popo.
~Mr. Popo, Dragonball Z Abridged
Can we move the conversation we started on the News forum here?
It would be less messy in the long run if you respond to my last post on news here I guess.
Personally I never saw the need or point to move from final version of 1st edition AD&D to 2E, or once that had happened from 2E to 3E. Obvously the only point that mattered to WotC was screwing more and more money out of us punters. Third edition, or Turd Edition as I prefer to call it was the worst incarnation of the lot as far as I'm concerned, 4E hopefully will be a step back in the right direction, but the pessimist in me doubts it.
It would be less messy in the long run if you respond to my last post on news here I guess.
Personally I never saw the need or point to move from final version of 1st edition AD&D to 2E, or once that had happened from 2E to 3E. Obvously the only point that mattered to WotC was screwing more and more money out of us punters. Third edition, or Turd Edition as I prefer to call it was the worst incarnation of the lot as far as I'm concerned, 4E hopefully will be a step back in the right direction, but the pessimist in me doubts it.
[QUOTE=Darth Gavinius;1096098]Distrbution of games, is becoming a little like Democracy (all about money and control) - in the end choice is an illusion and you have to choose your lesser evil.
And everything is hidden in the fine print.[/QUOTE]
And everything is hidden in the fine print.[/QUOTE]
-
Siberys
- Posts: 6207
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 7:16 pm
- Location: I live in that one place with the thing
- Contact:
Actually, that's why I started the thread here. I knew that the 4th edition announcement in the news section might become huge, so I created this to just pickup where we left off. Make it easy that is.Can we move the conversation we started on the News forum here?
Listen up maggots, Mr. Popo's 'bout to teach you the pecking order.
It goes you, the dirt, the worms inside of the dirt, Popo's stool, Kami, then Popo.
~Mr. Popo, Dragonball Z Abridged
It goes you, the dirt, the worms inside of the dirt, Popo's stool, Kami, then Popo.
~Mr. Popo, Dragonball Z Abridged
I don't know if this is too far out of context, if it is just delete it Siberys.
I Iand my fellow D&Ders back in the day) always considered the most important words in the DMG were on the last page. I can't remember the actual wording but it amounted to: There are no hard rules in D&D, the books are guidelines to be altered to suit the needs of each DM and her/his players.
That was something we all took very seriously indeed. I find it personally ironic that one of the first 'rules' we changed are still in place even today. When we got the D&D bug we rushed out and spent a fortune buying all the books, icluding the first edition of Deities and Demigods,. As it happened we'd already started a Norse based campaign, and we had two parties running on alternate weeks (with two DMs taking turns). Each party had a cleric, one of Freyr and one of Tyr, so when we looked them up in D&G and found that their holy symbols were a Two0Handed Sword and a Longsword, the idiotic blunt weapon limitiation went straight out of the windwo, with no dissenting voices. I mean how can you tell a Cleric that he/she can't wield her/his holy symbol?
OK, geriatric remeniscing over.
I Iand my fellow D&Ders back in the day) always considered the most important words in the DMG were on the last page. I can't remember the actual wording but it amounted to: There are no hard rules in D&D, the books are guidelines to be altered to suit the needs of each DM and her/his players.
That was something we all took very seriously indeed. I find it personally ironic that one of the first 'rules' we changed are still in place even today. When we got the D&D bug we rushed out and spent a fortune buying all the books, icluding the first edition of Deities and Demigods,. As it happened we'd already started a Norse based campaign, and we had two parties running on alternate weeks (with two DMs taking turns). Each party had a cleric, one of Freyr and one of Tyr, so when we looked them up in D&G and found that their holy symbols were a Two0Handed Sword and a Longsword, the idiotic blunt weapon limitiation went straight out of the windwo, with no dissenting voices. I mean how can you tell a Cleric that he/she can't wield her/his holy symbol?
OK, geriatric remeniscing over.
[QUOTE=Darth Gavinius;1096098]Distrbution of games, is becoming a little like Democracy (all about money and control) - in the end choice is an illusion and you have to choose your lesser evil.
And everything is hidden in the fine print.[/QUOTE]
And everything is hidden in the fine print.[/QUOTE]
Personally, I like splatbooks. They add more depths to the game. If you don't like them, leave them.
Also, 3.5 was a huge leap forward from 3.0, since there were lots of awkward rules. Example: I find 3.5 DR more intresting.
On 4th Ed: I don't like the idea of the current books being not compatible. Also, the online part... With subscription, this stinks. Lots of fancy wording for saying "we want you to pay even more." I think D&D should be playable without any tech-aids. That's the charm of the thing! This sounds like they're even going to force the normal game in to some RPGA-like monstrosity.
On a rulesbasis: I like the idea of 30 levels and racial abilities spread out through the levels. It should add a difference at higher levels between the races. Also, the fact that different weapons influence the Fighter's style, seems like a cool thing.
Also, 3.5 was a huge leap forward from 3.0, since there were lots of awkward rules. Example: I find 3.5 DR more intresting.
On 4th Ed: I don't like the idea of the current books being not compatible. Also, the online part... With subscription, this stinks. Lots of fancy wording for saying "we want you to pay even more." I think D&D should be playable without any tech-aids. That's the charm of the thing! This sounds like they're even going to force the normal game in to some RPGA-like monstrosity.
On a rulesbasis: I like the idea of 30 levels and racial abilities spread out through the levels. It should add a difference at higher levels between the races. Also, the fact that different weapons influence the Fighter's style, seems like a cool thing.
-
Siberys
- Posts: 6207
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 7:16 pm
- Location: I live in that one place with the thing
- Contact:
Then why call them splatbooks if you like them? Splatbooks means that it's a book half-arsed worked on with typo's and format problems, no consideration to balance whatsoever, no innovation or thought process that a trained monkey couldn't come up with on his own. If complete arcane has classes and rules that are interesting and nifty to you, then it isn't a splatbook.Personally, I like splatbooks. They add more depths to the game. If you don't like them, leave them.
How exactly? 3rd edition DR actually made sense. the whole DR / +1 magic to +5 magic made it possible for a stronger monster to actually still resist damage from a high level party. But in 3.5, every single tough monster in the game that has some beautiful damage reduction, like DR 20/magic, means that a 7th level party could damage it no problem. Possibly even sixth.Example: I find 3.5 DR more intresting.
Listen up maggots, Mr. Popo's 'bout to teach you the pecking order.
It goes you, the dirt, the worms inside of the dirt, Popo's stool, Kami, then Popo.
~Mr. Popo, Dragonball Z Abridged
It goes you, the dirt, the worms inside of the dirt, Popo's stool, Kami, then Popo.
~Mr. Popo, Dragonball Z Abridged
To be honest, I always heard splatbook as a reference to any non-core book. It's th convention that our group uses. So I used the wrong word. I like nearly 75% of the non-core books. Most are good (Races of Stone & The Wilds, Completes,..), some are aweful (Races of Destiny) and some are awesome and enhance D&D on a fundamental level! (XPH, ToB).
On DR...: I found the +x DR lame. Buy a +5 weapon and you're safe.
Now, the DR is more tied-in with the background of the creature and you're required to make some tactical choices or rely on your party more to overcome DR.
Another thing I liked in 3.5 was the way the Ranger was upgraded.
On DR...: I found the +x DR lame. Buy a +5 weapon and you're safe.
Now, the DR is more tied-in with the background of the creature and you're required to make some tactical choices or rely on your party more to overcome DR.
Another thing I liked in 3.5 was the way the Ranger was upgraded.
-
Siberys
- Posts: 6207
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 7:16 pm
- Location: I live in that one place with the thing
- Contact:
Lets see, I hate the XPH (to me that's what started the word splatbook for 3.5), 40% of tome of battle used and basically stole information from a game called Shining Force. Races of destiny and stone were garbage both. Destiny for it's obvious reasons, weak and rather ludicrous feats, a race more complex than the term Level Adjustment (Illumians) and of course some of the prestige classes, like the one that turns you into everything. Stone was bad because all it did was expand on the idea that dwarves and gnomes are stone-like beings or earth-like beings. They didn't really say anything super new and unique, the weird feats and exotic armor was just unnecessary, and of course most of the prestige classes were completely useless outside of a stone-based campaign.
Ranger upgrade, awesomeness. I do agree with that.
The DR thing, you had to make even more tactical choices with 3rd edition DR. DR from third edition wasn't much different. Really, the only noticeable difference was switching from DR/+X to DR/Magic. Everything else was about the same. DR/Adamantine, DR/Silver, DR/Good, DR/Cold Iron, etc.
And lastly, as for Fourth edition itself. I've seen all there is to see by now of what 4E has to offer thus far. I watched the presentation for Gen Con when I went up there (God I love living an hour drive away from the biggest DND geek convention). At first, what they showed looked like a glorified pretentious sack of crap. In retrospect, they weren't improving a thing on DND of what they showed us. Instead, they're basically doing what Winzip does to compressed files. All 4E does is expand things out to slow the process of optimization and stuff like that down and speed and ease combat. It's not an improvement, it's merely just a stretch of the same old crap.
But then....there was hope. For at the end of the seminar when my eyes nearly started to bleed, the credits of who was in charge of bringing the new edition to life played through. And for a moment, my heart skipped a beat with utter ecstatic joy when I saw that Skip Williams won't have anything to do with this edition or at least any of the core books. YAY!
(For those that don't know, Skip Williams was the dude who started up 3.5 and while he did improve things for the half edition, he also tried to fix what wasn't broken, thus the frustration with MANY many things in 3.5 such as grapple, flight, and all the "improved" feats that allow you to do nifty stuff with your weapon)
Ranger upgrade, awesomeness. I do agree with that.
The DR thing, you had to make even more tactical choices with 3rd edition DR. DR from third edition wasn't much different. Really, the only noticeable difference was switching from DR/+X to DR/Magic. Everything else was about the same. DR/Adamantine, DR/Silver, DR/Good, DR/Cold Iron, etc.
And lastly, as for Fourth edition itself. I've seen all there is to see by now of what 4E has to offer thus far. I watched the presentation for Gen Con when I went up there (God I love living an hour drive away from the biggest DND geek convention). At first, what they showed looked like a glorified pretentious sack of crap. In retrospect, they weren't improving a thing on DND of what they showed us. Instead, they're basically doing what Winzip does to compressed files. All 4E does is expand things out to slow the process of optimization and stuff like that down and speed and ease combat. It's not an improvement, it's merely just a stretch of the same old crap.
But then....there was hope. For at the end of the seminar when my eyes nearly started to bleed, the credits of who was in charge of bringing the new edition to life played through. And for a moment, my heart skipped a beat with utter ecstatic joy when I saw that Skip Williams won't have anything to do with this edition or at least any of the core books. YAY!
(For those that don't know, Skip Williams was the dude who started up 3.5 and while he did improve things for the half edition, he also tried to fix what wasn't broken, thus the frustration with MANY many things in 3.5 such as grapple, flight, and all the "improved" feats that allow you to do nifty stuff with your weapon)
Listen up maggots, Mr. Popo's 'bout to teach you the pecking order.
It goes you, the dirt, the worms inside of the dirt, Popo's stool, Kami, then Popo.
~Mr. Popo, Dragonball Z Abridged
It goes you, the dirt, the worms inside of the dirt, Popo's stool, Kami, then Popo.
~Mr. Popo, Dragonball Z Abridged
One more thing about DR: there are lots more creatures with slashing, bludgeoning and piercing as DR, there's Good/Evil/Chaos/Law DR and Cold Iron and such are a lot more prominent. (Example: Fiends are now vulnarable to certain materials, no longer a flat + X DR.)
XPH & ToB enhance D&D for the better, but some people hate them because they undermine, however slightly, the sheer & utter domincance of Wizards in any game. Especially ToB adds some fun to melee again. I don't know Shining Force, so I can't comment on that.
You're right about the "Improved blabla" feats, though, they lead to some horrid abuse by some DM's.
I'm mostly excited about the races integration in the whole level progression. Not that that outweighs the "WHY change D&D yet again?"
XPH & ToB enhance D&D for the better, but some people hate them because they undermine, however slightly, the sheer & utter domincance of Wizards in any game. Especially ToB adds some fun to melee again. I don't know Shining Force, so I can't comment on that.
You're right about the "Improved blabla" feats, though, they lead to some horrid abuse by some DM's.
I'm mostly excited about the races integration in the whole level progression. Not that that outweighs the "WHY change D&D yet again?"
-
Shadowfire
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:44 pm
- Contact:
Being that I play Living Greyhawk... this whole 4.0 thing is somewhat aggrivating. (Just started playing about a year ago.)
Since the rules incompatability is an issue, it is ending LG at the end of 2008. (Though it is supposed to be ended before that in actuality.)
We're informed that it will be Living Forgotten Realms and be based on the 4.0 system. (I really don't like the idea of purchasing another set of core books.)
From what I'm told (By one of our game day judges.), WotC is trying to make D&D like WoW. - If I'm to play an online version, it may as well be DDO since I've already got an account.
Didn't go to GenCon. Did go to Conflict In The Vesve & Shield Lands.
Since the rules incompatability is an issue, it is ending LG at the end of 2008. (Though it is supposed to be ended before that in actuality.)
We're informed that it will be Living Forgotten Realms and be based on the 4.0 system. (I really don't like the idea of purchasing another set of core books.)
From what I'm told (By one of our game day judges.), WotC is trying to make D&D like WoW. - If I'm to play an online version, it may as well be DDO since I've already got an account.
Didn't go to GenCon. Did go to Conflict In The Vesve & Shield Lands.
- Shadowfire
"What a piece of work is a man. How noble in reason. How infinite in faculties. In form and moving, how express and admirable. In action, how like an angel. In apprehension, how like a god!"
"What a piece of work is a man. How noble in reason. How infinite in faculties. In form and moving, how express and admirable. In action, how like an angel. In apprehension, how like a god!"
I'm not a big fan of LG myself, so to people complaining about RPGA changing, I'm tempted to say: It's your own fault. 
Anyway, the biggest problem I have with 4.0 is that they had to change the fluff as well. How can you expect coherency in your background if suddenly Tanar'ri and Baatezu get a whole new background, the planes suddenly change (Why drop the fantastisch idea of the Great Wheel??) and monsters cease to exist from one day to the next? I'm not opposed to fluff-changes, but incorporate them in to the storyline. I'm thinking of how Gamesworkshop incorporates the results of the live-campaigns in it's ongoing story, of they way the Lady of Pain dealt with the factions.
It shows that they don't take it very seriously from a gamer's perspective. From the buisiness perspective, I think they know all to well what they're doing.
From what I've read about the crunch aspect, I think it will be for the better. The idea that race would have a bigger impact, for instance, is quite appealing.
Anyway, the biggest problem I have with 4.0 is that they had to change the fluff as well. How can you expect coherency in your background if suddenly Tanar'ri and Baatezu get a whole new background, the planes suddenly change (Why drop the fantastisch idea of the Great Wheel??) and monsters cease to exist from one day to the next? I'm not opposed to fluff-changes, but incorporate them in to the storyline. I'm thinking of how Gamesworkshop incorporates the results of the live-campaigns in it's ongoing story, of they way the Lady of Pain dealt with the factions.
It shows that they don't take it very seriously from a gamer's perspective. From the buisiness perspective, I think they know all to well what they're doing.
From what I've read about the crunch aspect, I think it will be for the better. The idea that race would have a bigger impact, for instance, is quite appealing.
Honestly, i think WotC are trying to be Blizzard. i play WOW as well as D&D, and i'm glad i'm not a DM now that 4e is out. my boyfriend is the DM (he doesn't play faves, he's actually harder on me lol). i bought him the new DMG, and he said he can't even find druids listed, and 2 chars in our campaign are druids. as far as he is concerned, we won't be adapting to 4e for a while, if ever really. WotC are trying to make more money by trying to force players into buying useless materials, like the old pen-and-paper way of doing it isn't good anymore because they're not making money off of it. it seems like they are trying to be Blizz because now rogues can vanish on an attack?! that doesn't seem fair to some classes (and in WOW it's how rogues kill a warlock like nothing ).
i think WotC really messed this one up big time.
). i think WotC really messed this one up big time.
-
Fiberfar
- Posts: 4196
- Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 12:07 pm
- Location: Looking down from ethereal skies
- Contact:
Mmmmph, seems like there's more rants than praises.
I have nothing to add, because I mostly agree with the above posts.
I have nothing to add, because I mostly agree with the above posts.
[QUOTE=Luis Antonio]ONLY RETARDED PEOPLE WRITE WITH CAPS ON. Good thing I press shift [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Luis Antonio]Bah! Bunch of lamers! Ye need the lesson of the true powergamer: Play mages, name them Koffi Annan, and only use non-intervention spells! Buwahahahahah![/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Luis Antonio]Bah! Bunch of lamers! Ye need the lesson of the true powergamer: Play mages, name them Koffi Annan, and only use non-intervention spells! Buwahahahahah![/QUOTE]
-
Willowsmith
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:00 am
- Location: Bar Harbor, ME
- Contact:
New to P&P type D&D
My husband and I just started playing paper and pencil D&D, I have been a huge fan of video games based from D&D though like Neverwinter Nights and Baulder's Gate. We just bought the 4th Edition books and we are enjoying it although I did notice the gods are completely different and things like no druids and the like. I also miss wizards having familiars and rangers having animal companions (I think I will just decide as DM that they can have those anyway cause I can ) I also notice no Sorcerers as well. Oh well we are enjoying playing thus far (I fear my lack of experience is probably why I enjoy it so much but I felt there should be a post from the noobs corner )
My husband and I just started playing paper and pencil D&D, I have been a huge fan of video games based from D&D though like Neverwinter Nights and Baulder's Gate. We just bought the 4th Edition books and we are enjoying it although I did notice the gods are completely different and things like no druids and the like. I also miss wizards having familiars and rangers having animal companions (I think I will just decide as DM that they can have those anyway cause I can
) I also notice no Sorcerers as well. Oh well we are enjoying playing thus far (I fear my lack of experience is probably why I enjoy it so much but I felt there should be a post from the noobs corner )-
Willowsmith
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:00 am
- Location: Bar Harbor, ME
- Contact:
Right on, I think if you have a system you like keep it, if you want to change parts of one system, but keep others then do it, and above all if you want to create your own system from 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3.5th, and 4th editions taking your favorites from each and making a world all your own then do that too. The joy of paper and pencil RPGs (at least to my understanding), is that it is your world as both a player and a DM. Anything is possible, anything is real that you make real. There are no real rules, except that you create and agree on. Your imagination is the ultimate power and has no boundries, but what you set. My hubby and I are playing our first game together and we each have 2 characters each plus one that goes back and forth between us depending on who is DMing. This game has minimal combat, but a lot of made up on the fly quests and scenarios. There is always the potential for combat and it is sometimes fun to spice things up but putting random things like a Fox as the Wizards familiar and a Dire Rat as a Rangers animal companion (with proper power nerfing to make it balanced with a story like the dire rat was kicked out of its nest too young and never learned to use all of it's powers and attacks with other dire rats to explain why it is so weak caught in a trap and rescued by the Ranger who slowly (and painfully) gains it's trust) This to me is what makes Paper and Pencil RPGs so great. So if you want a Gnome Bard then make one and work them into your story. Because that is what it is, your story!