4th Edition

[Toptomcat]

I think there's reason to be realistic and optomistic here. Yes, they do need to bring out a new, improved version once every three to five years because of the realities of economics. WotC is a company, and they need constant cash flow in order to function. However, they seem to be making a genuine effort to use that economic neccesity for the betterment of the game, and ensuring that the product they're putting out is an actual upgrade rather than a sleazy attempt to milk a cash cow.

[Badasterysk]

toptomcat said:

... they seem to be making a genuine effort to use that economic neccesity for the betterment of the game, and ensuring that the product they're putting out is an actual upgrade rather than a sleazy attempt to milk a cash cow.

You mean like when they went from 3.0 to 3.5?

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad to see anybody expand the role-playing medium and draw in new players, but the binding on my 3.0 PHB is still holding together by several threads; no need to replace it just yet.

[Wicksy]

Man i still have first ed books that are in good nick (not from when it was still cannon but stil). All my 2nd ed stuff is fine. 3.0 got used a bit until 3.5 came along....

Oh, and there is nothing wrong with THAC0s easy peasy to work out! To Hit Armour Class 0. What so hard? ;D

[TheUdjat]

wicksy said:

Oh, and there is nothing wrong with THAC0s easy peasy to work out! To Hit Armour Class 0. What so hard? ;D

When your Armor Class isn't 0.

It's so much simpler to have a mechanic that is universally understood, like the d20+mod vs. DC system. You roll a d20, you try to hit a number, you make it or you don't!

And non-weapon profs? What's up with that? A percentile system for thief skills?

[spiral]

mwoohahhahahahahahahha!!!

[spiral]

3rd was too "super-hero" for my liking. As a british kid I was raised on the humble fantasy of Tolkien, where your heroes made their way in the world by strength of heart, a simple sword, and speed of wit. Normal folk picked themselves up in the face of sheer adversity and saved *themselves*, because there *were* no heroes to do it for them - and they found they didn't need them after all..!

Heroes never call themselves heroes. Only super-heroes have the gall to do that. They make me cringe. 3rd ed is just comic book fantasy - "Great Cleave! Dodge! Super attack! Kapow! Smacking down the competition! Yeehaw!!! /blows a bugle\"

If I'm going to use an out-of-date ruleset, I'll just go back to 2nd. Not that I do much anymore - but if I did, it would be 2nd..

[VemuKhaham]

Well I come from the same humble fantasy tradition, without Tolkien I would never have become so fascinated with fantasy. And I myself have often said the same things about D&D: much too super-heroic, if you look at the rules and the way they all lead toward, well, dragonball-Z characters, if you're not careful.

Still, that's just the rules. I don't see how an older, more complicated version of the same game gives you a more humble Tolkienesque kind of experience. It takes a whole lot more to do that.

[Japic]

I'm trying not to be too negative about 4th ed... though I don't want another damn rules set. I'm barely learned enough about the 3.5 system to run and play in the games; why go learning new ones?

The biggest thing to worry me is how I've heard that this system will be so much more simple. Less rules to worry about. Well, to that I say, without rules for most circumstances, you'll get house rulings for everything else and no consistency anywhere. If there are rules for everything, then it's just as complicated as the current system, IMO.

With the exception of a few things, I can't see improvements being necessary. I don't go around evaluating each class as playable or borken though, I don't know enough such rules to care. Do grapple checks need to be a little more simple? Perhaps, though you'll just replace these numbers with others that you'll need to add instead. The Dispel Magic entry? Fine the way it is IMO, long yes, but covers three precise sets of circumstances. For now the terms in that quote don't even make sense to me. "Intelligence vs. the Will defense" it says... unless they're scrapping classes that rely on wisdom and charisma for casting, this soulnds like a bad idea. Though I'm sure I just don't know enough yet to fully understand what the terms mean.

So for now... I'm not liking the idea of another system. It might be interesting in some places, but Im NOT looking forward to it. Maybe that opinion will change, but that won't be seen tll after it's released. As KMan says, he's a WotC whore, so he'll buy it and we'll go through it. Maybe even test it on the home group.

[TheUdjat]

The big thing they seem to have done is standardize special abilities. They all have a uniform layout and description, so if you know how one works, you can figure out how any of them work - no special exceptions or confusing parameters. From what I've seen so far, anyway. Martial characters are competitive with magic-using ones, everyone can do a little bit of occasional healing (negating the critical need for a cleric), etc. Statistics seem a lot more important, but on the other hand there are no more ability score penalties - everyone gets bonuses. Makes it far more plausible to play unique combinations, which was something sorely lacking, in my opinion.

As for rules being less complicated... tell me you're not saying 2nd edition was just as complicated as 3rd. 3rd was much simpler, and it covered just as many rules issues. It is perfectly plausible to cover everything and do it in a cleaner way.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and to the tolkien afficionados... Nothing wrong with that. I'll confess the 3.x system seems more conducive to action, but I think the 'comicky' aspect is completely dependent on the person running the game. Setting is entirely up to the GM. If you want it to feel more like 'classic' fantasy, then do it.

[Toptomcat]

The problems many have with the power level of 3rd Edition are easily solved by slowing advancement, and possibly stopping it at some point. One theory I've heard is that D&D play is divided into four distinguishable quartiles: the first five levels are gritty fantasty, along the lines of LotR and most Conan stories. The next five are heroic fantasy: the Princess Bride, and some of the tamer epics, like that of Beowulf, work well. The next five are the realm of superheroic fanasy: Chinese wuxia heroes balancing on tree branches, tales of the rage of Achilles and Cúchulainn's power, the Tolkienean heroes depicted in the Silmarillion, and a great deal of action anime fit here. The last
five levels are the realm of superheroic play and demigods.
If you want to restrict the 'feel' of your game so that it stays only within a certain set of these playstyles, then restrict the available levels accordingly. Saying that you dislike 3rd edition because it is capable of supporting higher-powered games than you prefer to play is throwing the baby out with the bathwater: it can do more or less everything 2nd can, while fixing many of its issues.

Here's some work on the subject that should help you restrict 3rd edition games to the 'feel' you are most comfortable with.
www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=206323

[Japic]

theudjat said:

As for rules being less complicated... tell me you're not saying 2nd edition was just as complicated as 3rd. 3rd was much simpler, and it covered just as many rules issues. It is perfectly plausible to cover everything and do it in a cleaner way.

I'm not saying it can't be cleaner, I just hope they're "cleaning" the right things and not cutting unnecessary corners or revising things which people are happy about.

[Wicksy]

Man, i remember sitting in Spiral's bedroom as 16 year olds with a few mates playing AD&D for the first time. It was my first RPG experience having made the upgrade from Warhammer fantasy battle/40K/Space Marine etc..

We had to roll 3d6 6 times and keep them in order for stats AND we had to roll for hit points at first level. I played a fighter with a strength of 8 (Spiral allowed it as i bitched ) and both the wizard and priest had 1 hp at first level ;D

For me, the THAC0 system etc.. is like first nature. Its simple maths to me. 3rd ed. congealed all of the optional rules of AD&D into a neat package and streamlined the mechanics to make it easier. However i like Spiral dont care for the broken characters that the newer editions inevitably lead to.

[Jolith]

I for one one am usually against change. I tend to prefer not having to learn new systems and sticking to older ones. When 3.0 came out I was against it and rallied to try to continue playing AD&D. Of course, when I eventually learned the system I thought it was much better than AD&D.

Strangely for this change, I'm not all that worried. Some of the things I'm reading about the changes, I'm actually very interested in seeing how they fix things up. Of course, there will be things I won't like about it, as there always is, but hopefully they will not outway the enhances they make to the system.

[VemuKhaham]

As for a set of rules affecting the style of fantasy, I agree in a way that rules/offered game options don't necessarily have to mean anything. If there are a zillion magic items in the DMG, then that is so that you can use them in a world with a zillion magic items, and even then there will be people begging for a trillzillion magic items, as you can see with all the books. But if you like simple, humble fantasy, then that's possible too. TTC's options for limiting levels are quite good, and there are other options too. In fact, I've been using them in my game on these boards.
But still, it's hard to deny that the product D&D is made with a certain feel in mind, that leans toward a superhero one. It is written between the lines: things like assumptions that there are market values for magic items, and such. I wonder what is the market value for Excalibur should Arthur have chosen to sell it. Almost the entire Monster Manuel is another example. Still, you can just ignore that, and go with your own game, but it does mean that 90% of what is in the books that you buy is more or less useless to you. Still, in respect of many, many hours, days, years of great fun, I won't go so far as to say I wasted but a dime on buying those books. But I won't buy those new ones.

[Deekin]

D&D was not desinged with Tolken in mind. Gygax only put in the races becouse he was pestered into it by his players. Gary Gygax, has specifically listed influences including Jack Vance, Robert E. Howard, L. Sprague de Camp, and Fletcher Pratt, Fritz Leiber, Poul Anderson, A. Merritt, and H. P. Lovecraft.

So complaining that D&D doesn't do Tolken well is like complaining that your screwdriver doesn't work as a hammer.

I do however, have the 4e D&D XP adventure and sample characters, if anyone wanted to do a 4e playtest.

[VemuKhaham]

Well, as a matter of fact, I do use my screwdriver as a hammer, what's wrong with that?

[Deekin]

vemukhaham said:

Well, as a matter of fact, I do use my screwdriver as a hammer, what's wrong with that?

The fact that you then turn around and complain that the screwdriver isn't a good hammer. ;D

As DM of the Rings points out, Tolkien makes for a horrible RPG.

[spiral]

I didn't say I wanted to play a Tolkien-influenced RPG, I just said that I didn't gel with the super-hero slant of 3rd Ed. If I was descended from cowboys I'd probably dig it.

I've found 3rd ed *tends* to lead to certain kinds of characters, which in turn, leads to certain kinds of game. 4th is going to be laughable. Fewer rules means only one thing - lots of discrepancy and confusion. Dispel Magic having six lines in the rulebook is actually a really BAD thing. I can't wait to see how often people get consued about how that works with other stuff.

As for 3rd ed being more simple, I disagree. Many people in my gaming group could remember all the 2nd ed rules without looking stuff up, because there was a small *system* for working out how each thing went down. With 3rd, it's just an encyclopedia of special cases with one or two systems for things like attack rolls and skill checks. Remembering hundreds of special cases is far harder than remembering four or five logical procedures. As a result, I see far fewer people who can remember the 3rd ed rules without having to look stuff up and slow down a game.

[Deekin]

spiral said:

I didn't say I wanted to play a Tolkien-influenced RPG, I just said that I didn't gel with the super-hero slant of 3rd Ed. If I was descended from cowboys I'd probably dig it.

I've found 3rd ed *tends* to lead to certain kinds of characters, which in turn, leads to certain kinds of game. 4th is going to be laughable. Fewer rules means only one thing - lots of discrepancy and confusion. Dispel Magic having six lines in the rulebook is actually a really BAD thing. I can't wait to see how often people get consued about how that works with other stuff.

As for 3rd ed being more simple, I disagree. Many people in my gaming group could remember all the 2nd ed rules without looking stuff up, because there was a small *system* for working out how each thing went down. With 3rd, it's just an encyclopedia of special cases with one or two systems for things like attack rolls and skill checks. Remembering hundreds of special cases is far harder than remembering four or five logical procedures. As a result, I see far fewer people who can remember the 3rd ed rules without having to look stuff up and slow down a game.

Wow, you might want to cancel your 4e order then.
4e seems to be moving towerd more heroic ends than anything else. 1st level character are more powerful, capable of wading through 4 minions per PC without breaking a sweat. The regions of play are now divided into 3 tiers-

Heroic- Save the City!
Paragon- Save the Kingdom!
Epic- Save the World!

Wizards is going for a more sword and sorcery Feel. The Heros are Special, and they can do Special things, and are Heros. With capital letters.

As for less rules leading to confusion. Have you ever played Magic: The Gathering? The Rules for basic things are simple, but every card is an exception to the rules. It's the same for 4e. All of a Class's powers are exceptions to the general rule. I don't see how the New Dispel Magic could cause any confusion.

[Badasterysk]

deekin said:

1st level character are more powerful, capable of wading through 4 minions per PC without breaking a sweat.

Where's the fun in that?

The Heros are Special, and they can do Special things, and are Heros. With capital letters.

The object of playing is for the PCs to become heroes, not start as them.