Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Realmslore
 RPG News & Releases
 D&D 4e Discussion Scroll

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert Email Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]
Rolling Eyes [8|] Confused [?!:] Help [?:] King [3|:]
Laughing [:OD] What [W] Oooohh [:H] Down [:E]

  Check here to include your profile signature.
Check here to subscribe to this topic.
    

T O P I C    R E V I E W
The Sage Posted - 16 Aug 2007 : 04:18:33
Now that the new edition of the D&D core game is apparently upon us, I'm setting aside this scroll for official 4e discussion. Let's try to keep most of the chatter about the new edition confined to this scroll for the time being, until the proper release of official 4e D&D core products.
30   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
Matt James Posted - 24 Feb 2010 : 17:29:25
El isn't gone and I suspect Elminster Must Die!!! will be a nice and pleasant shocker, chaulk full of info that will help set the record straight.
Ashe Ravenheart Posted - 24 Feb 2010 : 14:13:08
quote:
Originally posted by Sarelle

I was thinking today about two of my major problems with the changes, as I have garnered.

One is the loss of Elminster as the mischievous Gandalf-like figure of the setting. If he is insane and removed from the deity that has had a relationship with the character since his inception, then the setting is suddenly bereft of its own mascot - a character that was far more iconic of it as part of D&D than Drizzt Do'Urden.

Also, as part of this desire to be rid of the Chosen - a ridiculously over-the-top solution to the tired trope I remember from 3e discussions, that the Chosen made the Realms unplayable - the removal of Elminster is akin to loss of any guidance for new players in the realms. Elminster didn't likely play that role for a majority of campaigns, but he had that potential, as a fosterer of (not carer for) new adventurers. He also served as the Gandalf/Dumbledore/Merlin figure, which is undeniably comforting. Without these traits - as, merely, the new 'mad mage' (but not an evil one) - I really fail to see the gameplay point of his existence at all. What can he do in one's fledgling D&D game, flail 'madly' in the background? It seems counter to all the spiel about the changes being for the sake of good gaming. And this is all quite apart from the narrative transgressions on the character.

The other thing I was considering, was that it saddened me what they did to Shar. Whilst there were rumblings of her overuse in 3e, I thought Shar's increased role and duel opposition to Selūne and Mystra was very interesting - it set her up as a sort of Eris-from-Sinbad-like manipulative deity, whose religious machinations the players had to work against. A lot of potential, there. Now, it seems, she has not only won against Mystra completely (and Cyric to boot), but also transcended her opposition to Selūne and generally succeeded on all fronts, effectively ending her story.

quote:
Originally posted by Kuje

Welcome back, Sarelle. Haven't heard/seen you in awhile, nods.



Oh and of course, I remember Kuje! Nice to see you're still around :)

quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And I remember you! Welcome back!



Thanks! It'll only be intermittent stops over here, I think, but it's wonderfully nostalgic to be reading the boards and Forgotten Realms lore again.

quote:
Originally posted by The Sage

Hmmmph! Obviously I didn't make a big enough impression for Sarelle.



I just enjoy snubbing authority figures, it's not personal It is, of course, lovely to see you still around, too, Sage!



I'm still going with my speculation that Elminster isn't 'crazy', but that, at the moment of Mystra's death, he inherited a great portion of her (and some other spellcaster's, etc. that died at the same time) 'personality', let's say, and it's more likely that he's got a lot of voices in his head that really aren't his. Anyways, we'll find out more in August with Elminster Must Die!!! (that needed extra exclamation points )
Sarelle Posted - 24 Feb 2010 : 10:04:35
I was thinking today about two of my major problems with the changes, as I have garnered.

One is the loss of Elminster as the mischievous Gandalf-like figure of the setting. If he is insane and removed from the deity that has had a relationship with the character since his inception, then the setting is suddenly bereft of its own mascot - a character that was far more iconic of it as part of D&D than Drizzt Do'Urden.

Also, as part of this desire to be rid of the Chosen - a ridiculously over-the-top solution to the tired trope I remember from 3e discussions, that the Chosen made the Realms unplayable - the removal of Elminster is akin to loss of any guidance for new players in the realms. Elminster didn't likely play that role for a majority of campaigns, but he had that potential, as a fosterer of (not carer for) new adventurers. He also served as the Gandalf/Dumbledore/Merlin figure, which is undeniably comforting. Without these traits - as, merely, the new 'mad mage' (but not an evil one) - I really fail to see the gameplay point of his existence at all. What can he do in one's fledgling D&D game, flail 'madly' in the background? It seems counter to all the spiel about the changes being for the sake of good gaming. And this is all quite apart from the narrative transgressions on the character.

The other thing I was considering, was that it saddened me what they did to Shar. Whilst there were rumblings of her overuse in 3e, I thought Shar's increased role and duel opposition to Selūne and Mystra was very interesting - it set her up as a sort of Eris-from-Sinbad-like manipulative deity, whose religious machinations the players had to work against. A lot of potential, there. Now, it seems, she has not only won against Mystra completely (and Cyric to boot), but also transcended her opposition to Selūne and generally succeeded on all fronts, effectively ending her story.

quote:
Originally posted by Kuje

Welcome back, Sarelle. Haven't heard/seen you in awhile, nods.



Oh and of course, I remember Kuje! Nice to see you're still around :)

quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And I remember you! Welcome back!



Thanks! It'll only be intermittent stops over here, I think, but it's wonderfully nostalgic to be reading the boards and Forgotten Realms lore again.

quote:
Originally posted by The Sage

Hmmmph! Obviously I didn't make a big enough impression for Sarelle.



I just enjoy snubbing authority figures, it's not personal It is, of course, lovely to see you still around, too, Sage!
skychrome Posted - 18 Dec 2009 : 19:19:40
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
As a side note, I'd much prefer Pathfinder and Complete Warrior for a grim-and-gritty warrior game; but for swords-and-sorcery, like the Realms, 4e works for me.


Arivia,

since you have PMs disabled here, one question off topic:

what happened to your Adventures of the Forward Guard?
The last post was on Sept 30th. Did you stop running it? I always enjoyed reading along...

-
Alisttair Posted - 11 Dec 2009 : 17:37:05
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
I've tried it a bit. My best friend is in the middle of a 4E campaign. We both agree with ZeshinX. A wizard casting magic missile 'feels' just like a fighter shooting an arrow or a rogue throwing a knife. You take out the flavor text from the powers and they are all the same, just pulling from different stats.

Now, as I've said before, the game mechanics aren't 'wrong'. They work quite well and my friend is enjoying the campaign he's a part of. It's just feels watered-down.



That's fair then To each their own (I personally enjoy both 3.5E and 4E)
Ashe Ravenheart Posted - 11 Dec 2009 : 14:21:29
quote:
Originally posted by Alisttair

quote:
Originally posted by ZeshinX

quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
I take pride in never telling someone what they should like or play but this comment has me more out of whack than any other argument against the system that has been given to me. I still play other editions and moreover, other games. But, this comment is so grossly inaccurate that I have to wonder how you came to that conclusion.



I will try to explain how I came to that conclusion. I only ask that you bear in mind, I have no issues with those who enjoy playing the 4e system. None. If you enjoy it, please, continue to do so. These are my opinions, nothing more.

The reason I feel that they are rather undifferentiated, is they all come from the same cookie cutter mold.

They all seem to have the same base starting point. They have few truly unique qualities that really make them stand apart (in comparison to past editions). Even those qualities that are unique to the class pale in comparison to the powers achieved as one levels up.

I simply do not find the classes have any particular class-specific ability(ies) that make them much different from the others.

Up to and including 3e, every class felt unique in some way. I just no longer feel that with 4e. Perhaps I simply don't want to. I'm not opposed to that possibility. Perhaps its the fact there is no major difference between a fighter's ability to fight or a wizard's or rogue's or warlord's (given the lack of BABs or THAC0 systems).

It's more a feeling than anything else.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's wrong. That's just the feeling it leaves me with. If you feel differently, excellent! Carry on and enjoy. I certainly plan to with 3/3.5e.

I just find the flavour is gone, but that's hardly what I expect everyone else to think.



But is this based on reading the rulebook or on playing a few sessions (because by playing some sessions, you can feel the differences between the different classes...even the races all feel different).



I've tried it a bit. My best friend is in the middle of a 4E campaign. We both agree with ZeshinX. A wizard casting magic missile 'feels' just like a fighter shooting an arrow or a rogue throwing a knife. You take out the flavor text from the powers and they are all the same, just pulling from different stats.

Now, as I've said before, the game mechanics aren't 'wrong'. They work quite well and my friend is enjoying the campaign he's a part of. It's just feels watered-down.
Alisttair Posted - 11 Dec 2009 : 14:06:16
quote:
Originally posted by ZeshinX

quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
I take pride in never telling someone what they should like or play but this comment has me more out of whack than any other argument against the system that has been given to me. I still play other editions and moreover, other games. But, this comment is so grossly inaccurate that I have to wonder how you came to that conclusion.



I will try to explain how I came to that conclusion. I only ask that you bear in mind, I have no issues with those who enjoy playing the 4e system. None. If you enjoy it, please, continue to do so. These are my opinions, nothing more.

The reason I feel that they are rather undifferentiated, is they all come from the same cookie cutter mold.

They all seem to have the same base starting point. They have few truly unique qualities that really make them stand apart (in comparison to past editions). Even those qualities that are unique to the class pale in comparison to the powers achieved as one levels up.

I simply do not find the classes have any particular class-specific ability(ies) that make them much different from the others.

Up to and including 3e, every class felt unique in some way. I just no longer feel that with 4e. Perhaps I simply don't want to. I'm not opposed to that possibility. Perhaps its the fact there is no major difference between a fighter's ability to fight or a wizard's or rogue's or warlord's (given the lack of BABs or THAC0 systems).

It's more a feeling than anything else.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's wrong. That's just the feeling it leaves me with. If you feel differently, excellent! Carry on and enjoy. I certainly plan to with 3/3.5e.

I just find the flavour is gone, but that's hardly what I expect everyone else to think.



But is this based on reading the rulebook or on playing a few sessions (because by playing some sessions, you can feel the differences between the different classes...even the races all feel different).
ZeshinX Posted - 11 Dec 2009 : 00:15:58
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
I take pride in never telling someone what they should like or play but this comment has me more out of whack than any other argument against the system that has been given to me. I still play other editions and moreover, other games. But, this comment is so grossly inaccurate that I have to wonder how you came to that conclusion.



I will try to explain how I came to that conclusion. I only ask that you bear in mind, I have no issues with those who enjoy playing the 4e system. None. If you enjoy it, please, continue to do so. These are my opinions, nothing more.

The reason I feel that they are rather undifferentiated, is they all come from the same cookie cutter mold.

They all seem to have the same base starting point. They have few truly unique qualities that really make them stand apart (in comparison to past editions). Even those qualities that are unique to the class pale in comparison to the powers achieved as one levels up.

I simply do not find the classes have any particular class-specific ability(ies) that make them much different from the others.

Up to and including 3e, every class felt unique in some way. I just no longer feel that with 4e. Perhaps I simply don't want to. I'm not opposed to that possibility. Perhaps its the fact there is no major difference between a fighter's ability to fight or a wizard's or rogue's or warlord's (given the lack of BABs or THAC0 systems).

It's more a feeling than anything else.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's wrong. That's just the feeling it leaves me with. If you feel differently, excellent! Carry on and enjoy. I certainly plan to with 3/3.5e.

I just find the flavour is gone, but that's hardly what I expect everyone else to think.
Matt James Posted - 10 Dec 2009 : 21:19:30
quote:
Originally posted by ZeshinX
Even more, no class truly feels differentiated from the others! A fighter and warlock are pretty much the same. A wizard and ranger very little difference.


I take pride in never telling someone what they should like or play but this comment has me more out of whack than any other argument against the system that has been given to me. I still play other editions and moreover, other games. But, this comment is so grossly inaccurate that I have to wonder how you came to that conclusion.
ZeshinX Posted - 10 Dec 2009 : 19:51:25
Thought I'd add my 2 copper here.

I thoroughly detest 4e. I've been playing since the 1e -> 2e transition, and warmly embraced 3/3.5e.

I find 4e is a massive step backwards. While I enjoyed 1e/2e, I always found it to be lacking in the customization of a character. Of truly making a character stand out. Role-playing it the way you want can certainly achieve a goodly portion of this, but the game never supported that in a mechanics fashion in any large way. Skills & Powers and its ilk mitigated that slightly, and kits didn't hurt, but the underlying issue for me was still there. That issue being Joe Fighter and Bob Fighter were pretty much the same as Carl Fighter and Doug Fighter. Same with the other classes. The classes were different enough from each other, but within a class, you were pretty much identical to every other member of your class.

3/3.5e changed that. Rules that seemed to take a more common sense approach as opposed to the "because we said so" method (an example would be base classes being restricted to specific races...kits and prestige classes, okay fine, but not base classes). And the options...oh the glorious options! Joe Fighter and Carl Fighter, while both fighters, could be quite different (more so than 2e ever could have hoped to have been).

Then along comes 4e...and goes right back to the cookie cutter classes. Even more, no class truly feels differentiated from the others! A fighter and warlock are pretty much the same. A wizard and ranger very little difference. The arbitrary rules are also back. Multiclassing is one rule short of being not-so-bad (let ME choose which class ability I'd like thanks).

If the ideal of Communism ever presented itself in RPG form, 4e Dungeons and Dragons is it.

As a rules system, it works. I'll not say it doesn't. It does work, and quite nicely. It just doesn't serve the flavour of the game very well (or at least, not the flavour I'm looking for).

I picked up the 4e core books (PHB, DMG, MM) and the FR Campaign Guide (guide is right...here's how NOT to do things).

I can honestly say I'm now a happy customer of Paizo's Pathfinder. WotC lost me as a customer for now. I'll happily return if and when WotC's collective brain fart is corrected. I don't mean returning to 3.5e necessarily, but a return to that style and approach to D&D: options. Right now, that option is Paizo.
The Sage Posted - 03 Dec 2009 : 04:25:35
Hmmmph! Obviously I didn't make a big enough impression for Sarelle.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 03 Dec 2009 : 03:20:46
quote:
Originally posted by Sarelle

I don't recognise many people still posting, though I do remember Arivia and Wooly Rupert, as two members who I really liked.



And I remember you! Welcome back!
Kuje Posted - 03 Dec 2009 : 02:48:56
Welcome back, Sarelle. Haven't heard/seen you in awhile, nods.
Uzzy Posted - 03 Dec 2009 : 00:35:11
Worry not Sarelle. Many feel the same, and I, like Kajehase, have too lost my fascination for the world. Pathfinder and my other campaigns are much more interesting to me now. It's a real shame.
Alisttair Posted - 02 Dec 2009 : 15:58:41
Sarelle, if it makes you feel better, some people have decided to embrace it akin to a separate campaign setting altogether, if you wish to do the same.
Kajehase Posted - 02 Dec 2009 : 15:46:17
Welcome back Sarelle. (I rather prefer not to say what I feel about the changes made to the realms - the Waterdeep novels, are good, but other than that I've pretty much lost my fascination for the world.)
Sarelle Posted - 01 Dec 2009 : 09:58:02
It's been years since I last visited or posted on this board - I actually lost all the material I worked with to play and enjoy D&D and Realmslore a couple of years ago, and it was too difficult for me to start from scratch again. In some ways I'm grateful that I was made to move onto other creative fields, but my deep and abiding love for the Realms, and my small place in it, painfully remained.

I don't recognise many people still posting, though I do remember Arivia and Wooly Rupert, as two members who I really liked. That said, without knowing many people posting here, I'm aware that my comments might seem irrelevant or like I'm trolling. I don't mean to be. I know that this is in a sense coming from an uninformed and naive perspective, too, since I haven't read all the discussion or fully explored the changes to the FR.

But with this preamble, I wanted to express my opinion on my impression of the 4e changes on the Realms. And I have to say that after looking them up, the changes made to the Realms and its devotees are gravely disappointing, and seem to me to be very disrespectful to everyone - players and DMs, game designers and authors - who have invested in the campaign up til now. Obviously there will be some who like the changes, but I have to admit that though I struggled with some of the changes from 2e to 3e, the variety of 3e rules, and the great work in the 3e FR book line, seemed to be to diversify and enhance the Realms even more. It felt like you could play a campaign in the world in 1371 DR a million different ways - from epic political play, to rampagning heroics, to minutely explored campaigns of intrigue. And the 4e changes feel like they have sought to narrow and limit the campaign, and furthermore force change onto lasting characters/campaigns that seek to abide by a basic canonicity, in a way that I don't think the change into 3e came close to.

My impression of the Realms now is one of uncertainty and trepidation rather than of possibility and innovation. Which I think is a real loss.
Jorkens Posted - 09 Aug 2009 : 15:17:36
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

Adding kits and focusing on optional rules wasn't part of the 1E-2E changeover; those were things that were done later.

Even so, the 1E-2E changeover was practically seemless, compared to the changes of 3E and 4E. Honestly, other than losing classes, 1E and 2E are practically the same.



There were plenty of rules in the Players Handbook and DMG that were stated as being optional. The kits were not in those two first books, but Fighters Handbook was published the same year.

I agree that the changes were far less overreaching than those to 3ed. and 4ed., but they were a lot more than changing a few hit-points and level limits.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 09 Aug 2009 : 14:37:28
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens

quote:
Originally posted by Jakk

. Those of you who remember 1E and 2E know that the biggest differences between the two systems were the increases of level limits for non-human characters and the dramatic (and much deserved) boost in power that dragons (and, to a lesser degree, giants) got.




You mean in addition to dropping classes, changing the same, removing races, adding kits, focusing on optional rules, tinkering with the rules in general and etc. etc.?

I'm a 2ed. user so most of these don't bother me, but it is a bit to simple a generalisation.



Adding kits and focusing on optional rules wasn't part of the 1E-2E changeover; those were things that were done later.

Even so, the 1E-2E changeover was practically seemless, compared to the changes of 3E and 4E. Honestly, other than losing classes, 1E and 2E are practically the same.
Jorkens Posted - 09 Aug 2009 : 08:21:28
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk

. Those of you who remember 1E and 2E know that the biggest differences between the two systems were the increases of level limits for non-human characters and the dramatic (and much deserved) boost in power that dragons (and, to a lesser degree, giants) got.




You mean in addition to dropping classes, changing the same, removing races, adding kits, focusing on optional rules, tinkering with the rules in general and etc. etc.?

I'm a 2ed. user so most of these don't bother me, but it is a bit to simple a generalisation.
Ashe Ravenheart Posted - 09 Aug 2009 : 05:27:56
quote:
Originally posted by MGyt

<snip>
THERE WILL NEVER BE A PERFECT GAME, EVER, AT ALL, IN ANYBODY"S LIFETIME.


Untrue! The perfect game is the one you enjoy playing. This may be any edition with a ton of house rules or even other systems entirely. As long as you like playing it, it's perfect. There may be moments of disagreement in the rules, but that's true in everything in life and games (remember playing war as a kid? "I shot you" "Nuh-uh, I had cover!")
Jakk Posted - 09 Aug 2009 : 05:13:48
quote:
Originally posted by Ayunken-vanzan

I prefer a solution that tries to evolve the game naturally and to solve its problems that way (Pathfinder), instead of creating a complete new game which abandons its legacy and has nothing to do with D&D anymore (4e).

Sounds inflaming? Of course, just like the sentence above that 3.x is "bad game design". This kind of marketing phrases did we have when WotC announced 4e, and they were one of the chief reasons that many are disgusted by said edition.



I agree... and the irony there is, 4E builds directly on the foundations of 3.x; it just simplifies the mechanics somewhat. I'm not against simplification, but I'm not crazy about the idea of opposed rolls for almost everything. I have to say that I'm much less "opposed" (pun intended) to the concept than I was when 4E first came out, and that's largely a credit to the collection of little things about 4E that I liked originally, like the Con score instead of modifier for 1st level HP, and the simplified skill list. To come back to my original point, having the creators of 4E say that 3E is bad design is like Zeb Cook (the developer of 2E) say that 1E is bad design. Those of you who remember 1E and 2E know that the biggest differences between the two systems were the increases of level limits for non-human characters and the dramatic (and much deserved) boost in power that dragons (and, to a lesser degree, giants) got.

I'd hardly say that 3E is "bad game design" when one of the lead designers, Monte Cook, has been a consultant on Pathfinder, which has already sold out its initial print run. Anything that's poorly designed in any sort of objective sense won't inspire popularity in the long run. I originally believed that 4E was the badly designed game of the two, but after really reading the rules and playing a session or two, it's just that the rule set doesn't work for me or my gaming group for D&D. The biggest problem we have is the pervasive equilibrium between the classes; we might as well roll a d10 to choose a class now, because there's not a whole lot of difference either way. And maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I really didn't care for the complete overhaul of the spell lists; the change in the magic system was long overdue, but did they really need to mess with the individual spells that much? A big part of me doesn't think so.

As originally pointed out in the quote from Ayunken-vanzan, what the game, and the Realms, needed was evolution, and what they got was replacement. For me, it was exactly like going from Windows XP to Windows Vista; nothing worked right for me, so I went right back to XP / 3.5, and was overjoyed to hear about Pathfinder (the d20 equivalent of XP Service Pack 3). That's just my 2 coppers.

Addendum: And my 700th post! Yay!
Ayunken-vanzan Posted - 08 Jul 2009 : 09:00:49
I prefer a solution that tries to evolve the game naturally and to solve its problems that way (Pathfinder), instead of creating a complete new game which abandons its legacy and has nothing to do with D&D anymore (4e).

Sounds inflaming? Of course, just like the sentence above that 3.x is "bad game design". This kind of marketing phrases did we have when WotC announced 4e, and they were one of the chief reasons that many are disgusted by said edition.
MGyt Posted - 08 Jul 2009 : 04:33:26
I can understand Arivia's feelings somewhat. You want a debate about the general issues with Pathfinder. I can understand that logic. However this particular scroll is a discussion of 4ed. The reason I pointed out problems with both editions was to give an explanation on my reasons for disliking 4ed and preferring 3e. I cannot give the same for pathfinder because I haven't spent time using pathfinder's rules. To test any system I have to play it first (not as a DM but as a player though I much prefer to DM). I do that to understand what it is to be a player in a system. Seeing as though pathfinder isn't out I have to go along with what I see. In looking at Pathfinder I see an upgrade. As I said it is to 3.5 what 3.5 was to 3.0. It won't solve all the issues, it merely takes another step at evolving the gameplay. I'll say this right now: THERE WILL NEVER BE A PERFECT GAME, EVER, AT ALL, IN ANYBODY"S LIFETIME. So we should just leave it at that. I'm not saying ignore the issues with the games. I'm saying accept them. People aren't perfect and we accept them, we can do the same with our games. I don't expect the people here to address the issues of either game. If someone has a counter point to make: I.E. I disagree with this point because... I'd be happy to have a back and forth with that poster.

For example with you Arivia.
1. You say Pathfinder doesn't fix issues with the current 3rd system. I am pretty sure it does not, at least not completely. However from what I see in the downloadable beta version, they have at leasst taken steps in the right direction. It goes so far as to make motions at resolving issues I have presented and even made strides to emulate some of the things I like about 4e. (Streamlined Skills, a number of class improvements, more abilities to choose from, etc etc).

2. You say no one addressed my issues (I'm assuming with 3rd ed because you seem to advocate 4ed) but you yourself have not offered a solution to my gripes about 4th ed.

3. I have heard the argument about complexity before, and I think that most of third edition's complexity comes from it attempting to have a rule for everything that could come up in a game. A billion supplements to give more options in character building, rules on everything above and below the planet, etc. And I for one admire the system for making the attemp, even if things get a bit complicated in the process. honestly if I didn't like the complexity I wouldn't have bought the supplements ^.^
Arivia Posted - 07 Jul 2009 : 22:49:13
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
In response to MGyt's post regarding 4th Edition, I offered him to take a look at Pathfinder to see if he might like it. If he had a problem with Pathfinder's rules, I'd tell him to check out 4th Edition!


The issue is, however, that that was the very first response. There was no effort made (by you) to actually address the issues MGyT raised, it was just "hi pathfinder."

Because of that, Pathfinder and 4e are now set up in binary opposition to each other. The discussion is no longer "this is what works in 4e or how to deal with your problems", it's "well, you could do this instead and here's why you should do it instead."

It's doing both systems a disservice by presenting them unevenly, and it divides the scribes by trying to posit one over the other (as all such oppositions do.) It's disingenuous because it, as you've said, specifically doesn't account for player choice or preference.

I don't want to make that opposition, and that's why I criticized Pathfinder without going "4e does it better because blah." Edition wars do no one good; constructive, reasoned debate about a single edition helps everyone.

As a side note, I'd much prefer Pathfinder and Complete Warrior for a grim-and-gritty warrior game; but for swords-and-sorcery, like the Realms, 4e works for me.
Christopher_Rowe Posted - 07 Jul 2009 : 21:50:48
Well put, Ashe.
Ashe Ravenheart Posted - 07 Jul 2009 : 21:23:51
{sigh}

Listen, you like 4th Edition. You like to play it and have fun doing so. Just because it's easier for you to play that edition, does not mean it's better than previous editions.

What it comes down to is a matter of taste. And I'm not saying that anyone's taste is superior, because it's not.

But to say that 4th Edition is superior to 3rd edition is akin to saying that checkers is better than chess because there's less rules to remember. Both games are fun, both are very strategic and matches the skills of two opponents. Is one better than the other? No.

I prefer the Pathfinder/OGL rules to 4th Edition. I've said in previous posts, on many different boards, that 4th edition is a good, well-balanced rules set. But I still don't like it for my game sessions.

In response to MGyt's post regarding 4th Edition, I offered him to take a look at Pathfinder to see if he might like it. If he had a problem with Pathfinder's rules, I'd tell him to check out 4th Edition!

Anyway, we have to just agree to disagree on this point. Items you see as problems in 3.5 and Pathfinder, I don't see as problems. Just like things I see as problems in 4th Edition aren't problems to you.
Arivia Posted - 07 Jul 2009 : 21:05:03
That's fine, but it's disingenuous to offer it up as a balm for all ills instead of actually responding to possible issues.
Ashe Ravenheart Posted - 07 Jul 2009 : 20:55:46
Okay, I'm not getting into this. Nope.

You like 4E and I'm glad it works for you. I'm not looking for a rules set that 'reduces my prep time', but one that I enjoy playing.
Arivia Posted - 07 Jul 2009 : 20:38:32
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart

That actually brings up a good point. I've done a lot of spreadsheeting so that I can 'up' the base creatures and monsters the characters fight so it's not a horde of goblins that is needed for a part of 5 level PCs. I mean, the DMG gives you tables of every class from level 1-20 for NPCs, including what kind of gear they are carrying. To create a party of 5 goblins that actually stand up to the party usually takes me no more than an hour.

And with the changes that Pathfinder is making, it's making it easier for me to figure some stuff out.

Now, I realize that I'm probably not your average DM. I build spreadsheets for my campaigns that keep track of everything for me so that I can alter encounters on the fly and, in extreme cases, roll the dice for me (just in case I *want* that horde of goblins...).

As for the classes and scaling, I was addressing the fact that they made it beneficial to be a low-level wizard or a high-level fighter. Regarding it taking 10-20 minutes for the PC's turn, that can happen in any game, any edition. If the player of that character gets to the point where he has six attacks, usually they have discovered a shortcut (rolling multiple dice, using averages, etc.) to speed it up in combat.



Those are things that you have to compensate for: they aren't things Pathfinder is fixing going into their version of 3.5. In other words, you have to take extra game or prep time because of bad game design.

Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2024 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000