| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Starshade
Learned Scribe
Norway
279 Posts |
 Posted - 21 Feb 2017 : 21:50:30
|
| The only real complaint about 2e I have heard in RL was spellcasters at low Levels. It was so big an issue some Norwegians i knew made AD&D wizards able to cast infinte number of spells. |
 |
|
|
LordofBones
Master of Realmslore
1477 Posts |
Posted - 22 Feb 2017 : 01:48:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
That being said, 5e does do an admirable job with introducing low power cantrips and also long casting rituals to fill the void for when the spellcaster has cast his more "tiring" spells.
This is my point. You are right, swing a sword all day is tiring. But even if your arms hurt of tiring, you can still swing the sword. Not as effective as when you're at full energy, but at least you're not useless.
The cantrips and the rituals in 5e help to give the idea that even if you're tired of exerting your will over the cosmos, human (or demihuman, or monster) will is boundless (willforce is the last thing to be broken for heroic characters) and can exert control even over minor magic. Not as powerful as when the mage have all their spell slots, but still is powerful enough.
That is my problem with 3e magic. When the wizard cast their last spell slot, spell-like ability, incarnum, whatever, they became useless. And isn't logical within the parameters of fantasy fiction.
I'm curious what kind of game you're running where the wizard uses up all his spell slots, staff charges and summoned creatures. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 22 Feb 2017 : 03:11:37
|
If you started in 4e, you wouldn't be using the law of conservation of energy.
You get 'spells per encounter', than you just 'go in blasting' all the time. This is just one reason why 4e was so encounter/combat driven. You didn't have to 'think' your way through an encounter. All the classes were like that - it followed a VG paradigm. You just had to wait a few minutes for your 'energy bar' to refill and *BLAMMO*, you're back in action. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it - I play VG's all the time. I just don't think it felt like D&D.
On the other hand, I think 4e would have made the PERFECT set of 'Supers' rules, and yet, they never developed a Supers game for it. Pity. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 22 Feb 2017 03:12:06 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 22 Feb 2017 : 03:48:53
|
A set of rules for playing in a super-hero (comic book) style game. The mechanics of 4e were practically written just for that (every class got 'powers' at each level). From the moment I cracked open the 4e PH I was like, "Wow, this would make for an awesome Supers game!" I think maybe it could have even been better than Villains & Vigilantes (did I mention I helped playtest that?)  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4427 Posts |
Posted - 22 Feb 2017 : 06:14:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
If you started in 4e, you wouldn't be using the law of conservation of energy.
You get 'spells per encounter', than you just 'go in blasting' all the time. This is just one reason why 4e was so encounter/combat driven. You didn't have to 'think' your way through an encounter. All the classes were like that - it followed a VG paradigm. You just had to wait a few minutes for your 'energy bar' to refill and *BLAMMO*, you're back in action. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it - I play VG's all the time. I just don't think it felt like D&D.
On the other hand, I think 4e would have made the PERFECT set of 'Supers' rules, and yet, they never developed a Supers game for it. Pity.
Eh, by 7th level or so Spellcasters (at least in 3e) had access to soo many spells and scrolls and wands and items that it was VERY unlikely that they ran out of spells and even lower level spells held their own due to their power increasing by caster level. I mean in 3e you could fly for minutes on end, shoot lazers, go invisible, then turn into a dragon. But somehow 4e is the Super-Heron edition? |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 22 Feb 2017 : 16:58:16
|
I wasn't knocking it, so there is no need to defend it. Its just a different style of play, is all. It was more encounter (combat) focused than any other edition before it, so much so that people felt it took from the RPG aspects of it (which is preposterous, since the RPG aspects have more to do with the DM and the group than any rules set).
But since you are defending it, it wasn't so much that Mages were more powerful (and at lower levels, they are), its that EVERYONE had the same mechanics - it was overbalanced. You basically laid down the same damage whatever class you were. Sure, you could say you were swinging a sword, shooting magic bolts, backstabbing, etc, but it all 'felt' the same. BTW, this coming from people I've talked to - and enjoyed the 4th edition, because I NEVER played it, and couldn't honestly say. All my experience of it comes from just reading the 4ePH.
With Mages, they got 'washed out'... its kind of hard to explain. In earlier editions, they went from near-useless targets (low level), to handy helpers (mid levels) to a walking arsenal (high levels). Getting your mage high enough to shine was quite an accomplishment in early D&D. 3e gave them some 'omph' right out of the gate (better HP, etc), but they still followed the 1e/2e paradigm. 4e just took all that and applied a rolling-pin to it. They were of about the same utility (comparative power) throughout their lifespan. Now, on the surface, that sounds like a good thing, and I guess in some ways it was (once again, more like a VG than a TT RPG), but it just didn't feel like D&D anymore. Wizards no longer had to get off their 'one shot' and than spend the rest of the time cowering behind the fighters.
I think what happened to the Cleric over the years is much worse, but I can totally get why it happened. No-one wanted to play the cleric in OD&D or 1e. They got a little 'shinier' in 2e, and then became kind of awesome in 3e. Then in 4e they sort of just became another combat class (because everyone could heal, and when everyone can do it, priests are no longer 'special').
So thats about it - there was this certain 'homogenization' that went on there, where they balanced the crap out of everything, to the point where it became less interesting. I can point to this same affect happening in other games; for example, in WoW The Horde had certain classes the Alliance did not, and vice-versa. That made each side unique and different. Than the expansions started coming out, and The Horde got Paladins, and The Alliance got Shamans... it all felt the same after that.
Sometimes, I think, designers can listen to the (whiny) gamers too much... you know, the ones who are jealous of the 'other guys toys'. This lead to an over balancing of everything, and it also lead to the complete obliteration of the setting that was The Forgotten Realms. Designers should NEVER listen to the people who hate something. Haters gonna hate. Its why the internet has trolls. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 22 Feb 2017 22:10:30 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 22 Feb 2017 : 21:44:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
That being said, 5e does do an admirable job with introducing low power cantrips and also long casting rituals to fill the void for when the spellcaster has cast his more "tiring" spells.
This is my point. You are right, swing a sword all day is tiring. But even if your arms hurt of tiring, you can still swing the sword. Not as effective as when you're at full energy, but at least you're not useless.
The cantrips and the rituals in 5e help to give the idea that even if you're tired of exerting your will over the cosmos, human (or demihuman, or monster) will is boundless (willforce is the last thing to be broken for heroic characters) and can exert control even over minor magic. Not as powerful as when the mage have all their spell slots, but still is powerful enough.
That is my problem with 3e magic. When the wizard cast their last spell slot, spell-like ability, incarnum, whatever, they became useless. And isn't logical within the parameters of fantasy fiction.
I'm curious what kind of game you're running where the wizard uses up all his spell slots, staff charges and summoned creatures.
At lower levels in earlier editions this happened a lot. 3rd edition started to aid this with scribe scroll given to wizards at first level for free, though it wasn't a great solution. After that the wizard had to shoot a crossbow, throw darts/daggers, swing a staff in desperation, etc.... Also, at lower levels, sleep was an almost amazing thing for group encounters, charm person had enormous potential by giving you a bodyguard/servant/sacrificial lamb, etc....
That being said, also at lower levels the fighter took one hit and needed healing. The thief failed a trap check and needed healing. You weren't exactly "going all day" with anyone. The person I felt for was the cleric, because the only spells the rest of the party would LET them carry were heal spells for the first few levels, but hey, at least they had armor and everyone was motivated to keep them alive.
|
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 22 Feb 2017 : 21:49:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
If you started in 4e, you wouldn't be using the law of conservation of energy.
You get 'spells per encounter', than you just 'go in blasting' all the time. This is just one reason why 4e was so encounter/combat driven. You didn't have to 'think' your way through an encounter. All the classes were like that - it followed a VG paradigm. You just had to wait a few minutes for your 'energy bar' to refill and *BLAMMO*, you're back in action. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it - I play VG's all the time. I just don't think it felt like D&D.
On the other hand, I think 4e would have made the PERFECT set of 'Supers' rules, and yet, they never developed a Supers game for it. Pity.
Eh, by 7th level or so Spellcasters (at least in 3e) had access to soo many spells and scrolls and wands and items that it was VERY unlikely that they ran out of spells and even lower level spells held their own due to their power increasing by caster level. I mean in 3e you could fly for minutes on end, shoot lazers, go invisible, then turn into a dragon. But somehow 4e is the Super-Heron edition?
Not a power thing.... its a "I'm doing the same damn thing yet again" thing. The reason a lot of us like wizards is the "think out of the box to get things done" piece of it. Other people LIKE the "doing the same thing over and over" thing (my buddy loves playing fighters, and 3e at least gave him a few options, but it was still pretty much wade in and do multiple swings). Especially if you played earlier versions of the game where part of the fun was thinking up what kinds of wards you want to carry into THIS dungeon versus THAT dungeon... that's what a lot of us like. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 22 Feb 2017 : 22:03:20
|
That's why I love the Essentials ruleset for 4e. Yeah, it streamlines 4e to simple classes and little customization. But it gives the 4e ruleset the "D&D feeling" Markustay and sleyvas are talking about, without changing 4e rules to something that it wasn't 4e. I believe that if Essentials rules had appeared since the start of the edition, 4e wouldn't have had all the hate it got.
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
That being said, 5e does do an admirable job with introducing low power cantrips and also long casting rituals to fill the void for when the spellcaster has cast his more "tiring" spells.
This is my point. You are right, swing a sword all day is tiring. But even if your arms hurt of tiring, you can still swing the sword. Not as effective as when you're at full energy, but at least you're not useless.
The cantrips and the rituals in 5e help to give the idea that even if you're tired of exerting your will over the cosmos, human (or demihuman, or monster) will is boundless (willforce is the last thing to be broken for heroic characters) and can exert control even over minor magic. Not as powerful as when the mage have all their spell slots, but still is powerful enough.
That is my problem with 3e magic. When the wizard cast their last spell slot, spell-like ability, incarnum, whatever, they became useless. And isn't logical within the parameters of fantasy fiction.
I'm curious what kind of game you're running where the wizard uses up all his spell slots, staff charges and summoned creatures.
One in which our DM was not kind with new players, not even at lower levels  It was really difficult battles (my first D&D battle was in a lv.1 party against CR 5 enemies... we died). BTW, 3.5 rules. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
Edited by - Zeromaru X on 22 Feb 2017 22:04:42 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4427 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2017 : 06:07:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I wasn't knocking it, so there is no need to defend it. Its just a different style of play, is all. It was more encounter (combat) focused than any other edition before it, so much so that people felt it took from the RPG aspects of it (which is preposterous, since the RPG aspects have more to do with the DM and the group than any rules set).
But since you are defending it, it wasn't so much that Mages were more powerful (and at lower levels, they are), its that EVERYONE had the same mechanics - it was overbalanced. You basically laid down the same damage whatever class you were. Sure, you could say you were swinging a sword, shooting magic bolts, backstabbing, etc, but it all 'felt' the same. BTW, this coming from people I've talked to - and enjoyed the 4th edition, because I NEVER played it, and couldn't honestly say. All my experience of it comes from just reading the 4ePH.
The AEDU structure aside, each class's damage was pretty all over the place not to mention how they interacted with class features. The distinction between even characters of the same class is clear. A Fighter who fights with two-weapons not only has different exploits but features as well and is very different than a Fighter using a big two-hander. Then feats and utilities all add to the differences. For example I make a Fighter from Waterdeep who also dabbled in the Arcane. I could grab the Ritual Caster feat and the Arcana skill and now I'm making rituals. The difference in any particular character is likel to be never duplicated because there's no cleAR cut (must have feat, feature, spell, etc) that was so prevalent in 3e except maybe the Ranger's Twin Strike.
So the sameness point that's all so often made really doesn't hold water except maybe when your look at just the PHB. BUT that's also true of other editions as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Mages, they got 'washed out'... its kind of hard to explain. In earlier editions, they went from near-useless targets (low level), to handy helpers (mid levels) to a walking arsenal (high levels). Getting your mage high enough to shine was quite an accomplishment in early D&D. 3e gave them some 'omph' right out of the gate (better HP, etc), but they still followed the 1e/2e paradigm. 4e just took all that and applied a rolling-pin to it. They were of about the same utility (comparative power) throughout their lifespan. Now, on the surface, that sounds like a good thing, and I guess in some ways it was (once again, more like a VG than a TT RPG), but it just didn't feel like D&D anymore. Wizards no longer had to get off their 'one shot' and than spend the rest of the time cowering behind the fighters.
You're probably right, my experience with pre-3e is sparse to say the least but in 3e, I dunno a 1st level wizard can easily get 3 spells at 1st level plus 3 more cantrips. Sleep, Color Spray, Burning Hands, Charm Person can all be applied to mop up an encounter or two and any down time is spent making ridiculously cheap scrolls (as a wizard) for those spells you need but only every once in a while. At least that's been my experience with 3e
quote:
Originally posted by MarkustayI think what happened to the Cleric over the years is much worse, but I can totally get why it happened. No-one wanted to play the cleric in OD&D or 1e. They got a little 'shinier' in 2e, and then became kind of awesome in 3e. Then in 4e they sort of just became another combat class (because everyone could heal, and when everyone can do it, priests are no longer 'special').
Oh dear. Well there's a lot you don't really know about the awesomeness of 4e clerics. For one, they're THE best healer in the game. Their schtick is all about healing people without delving into their healing surge resouces. Not only that but they're great at helping allies with status effects that have a saving throw and laying down loads of Radiant vulnerability. The Radiant Mafia (all divine class party who loads on up Radiant prayers) is one of the best groups. Each "leader" class is unique and different in their own way despite all of them being healers. Which is why it's so baffling to me when people say they're all the same.
quote:
Originally posted by MarkustaySo thats about it - there was this certain 'homogenization' that went on there, where they balanced the crap out of everything, to the point where it became less interesting. I can point to this same affect happening in other games; for example, in WoW The Horde had certain classes the Alliance did not, and vice-versa. That made each side unique and different. Than the expansions started coming out, and The Horde got Paladins, and The Alliance got Shamans... it all felt the same after that.
Sometimes, I think, designers can listen to the (whiny) gamers too much... you know, the ones who are jealous of the 'other guys toys'. This lead to an over balancing of everything, and it also lead to the complete obliteration of the setting that was The Forgotten Realms. Designers should NEVER listen to the people who hate something. Haters gonna hate. Its why the internet has trolls.
For the Realms, I agree in part because of how drastic the changes were despite me liking many of them. But if your can blame anything on 4e's creation it's the creators of the previous edition. Nearly all of 4e's gimmicks were the result of how terribly imbalanced 3e was and how trivial non-spellcasters became mid- to late-game. Boring mechanics and the near requirement of either multiclassing or Prestige class in meant a ridiculous power creep that turned the game into rocket tag and the non-spellcasters had no rockets of their own. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4427 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2017 : 06:24:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
If you started in 4e, you wouldn't be using the law of conservation of energy.
You get 'spells per encounter', than you just 'go in blasting' all the time. This is just one reason why 4e was so encounter/combat driven. You didn't have to 'think' your way through an encounter. All the classes were like that - it followed a VG paradigm. You just had to wait a few minutes for your 'energy bar' to refill and *BLAMMO*, you're back in action. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it - I play VG's all the time. I just don't think it felt like D&D.
On the other hand, I think 4e would have made the PERFECT set of 'Supers' rules, and yet, they never developed a Supers game for it. Pity.
Eh, by 7th level or so Spellcasters (at least in 3e) had access to soo many spells and scrolls and wands and items that it was VERY unlikely that they ran out of spells and even lower level spells held their own due to their power increasing by caster level. I mean in 3e you could fly for minutes on end, shoot lazers, go invisible, then turn into a dragon. But somehow 4e is the Super-Heron edition?
Not a power thing.... its a "I'm doing the same damn thing yet again" thing. The reason a lot of us like wizards is the "think out of the box to get things done" piece of it. Other people LIKE the "doing the same thing over and over" thing (my buddy loves playing fighters, and 3e at least gave him a few options, but it was still pretty much wade in and do multiple swings). Especially if you played earlier versions of the game where part of the fun was thinking up what kinds of wards you want to carry into THIS dungeon versus THAT dungeon... that's what a lot of us like.
Wizards get spellbooks that hold all their daily and utility spells (I allow them to add all their spells in there and pick them per day) plus a Ritual book for all their rituals too. Spells can he used in a variety of ways, which makes wizards (specifically) the most versatile class in 4e. Use Scorching Burst (at-will spell) to melt ice, catch things on fire, burn wood, start bon fires or use Ray of Frost (at-will spell) to freeze a lock, make ground slippery, turn small amount of water to ice, etc. The more costly the resource the bigger the effect. |
|
|
|
LordofBones
Master of Realmslore
1477 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2017 : 11:31:21
|
To be completely fair, you could break the game with fighters too. Wizards just have the advantage of being good at everything. Need a meatshield? Gate in a solar/balor/pit fiend. Need to break the economy? Wall of iron/salt. Need a crowpocalypse? Destruction Retribution and a whole lotta dead crows. Need to be immortal? Shapechange, magic jar. Need to kill the BBEG? Maximized twinned empowered arcane thesis enervation, bestow curse + finger of death.
The fighter can hit things really hard. The wizard is a walking Biblical apocalypse when annoyed. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4427 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2017 : 12:57:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
To be completely fair, you could break the game with fighters too. Wizards just have the advantage of being good at everything. Need a meatshield? Gate in a solar/balor/pit fiend. Need to break the economy? Wall of iron/salt. Need a crowpocalypse? Destruction Retribution and a whole lotta dead crows. Need to be immortal? Shapechange, magic jar. Need to kill the BBEG? Maximized twinned empowered arcane thesis enervation, bestow curse + finger of death.
The fighter can hit things really hard. The wizard is a walking Biblical apocalypse when annoyed.
Ain't that the truth. I guess my problem is that what little I played of 2e the Fighters were actually pretty good then, especially when you add in things like non-weapon proficiency stuff (Fighter's Handbook?). Then with 3e they became SOO hyper-specialized and put nearly EVERYTHING fun behind a feat-wall. Oh sure you can try to trip someone without the Improved Trip/Combat Expertise feats but unless you either have A) amazing Strength (18+), B) use a Trip weapon, and C) fight mostly medium-sized monsters it'll backfire a significantly high amount of times.
Of course you also have to contend with the notion of "Full-Attack", which is silly on it's face and makes really NO sense in a system that's designed to simulate realism. A Wizard can pop a quicken spell and cast another spell and move ALL in 6 second BUT the Fighter, try as they might, can't make more than 1 attack if they move 5-ft?! Hahah, ok.
Then you get into the feats they get for "Free" but are like immovable stone once selected. A Fighter who grabs Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Improved Critical [Longsword] is out 3 feats if they find a better Warhammer or Battleaxe or maybe a Lance. Yes you can substitute these with Weapon Groups but doesn't really FIX the problem, just makes it generally less annoying. Now the Warblade (Tome of Battle: Book of 9 Swords) DOES fix the problem with Weapon Aptitude (1 hr meditation, change X-number of feats to specific weapon to another) and that greatly helps in campaigns where magical items are done randomly.
|
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2017 : 12:57:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
To be completely fair, you could break the game with fighters too. Wizards just have the advantage of being good at everything. Need a meatshield? Gate in a solar/balor/pit fiend. Need to break the economy? Wall of iron/salt. Need a crowpocalypse? Destruction Retribution and a whole lotta dead crows. Need to be immortal? Shapechange, magic jar. Need to kill the BBEG? Maximized twinned empowered arcane thesis enervation, bestow curse + finger of death.
The fighter can hit things really hard. The wizard is a walking Biblical apocalypse when annoyed.
In 5th edition they started fixing some of that though. For instance, walls are no longer permanent. Now, granted, I think they went a little far and they just like in 3.5 they need to introduce some rules to allow wizards to do certain things. For instance, I don't necessarily agree with the idea that every spell under the sun needs concentration or that a wizard can only concentrate on one thing at a time. That being said, for most wizards, maybe this SHOULD be the norm.
Obviously, I'm a big proponent of "hey, let's see some optional rules to help flex 5e's muscles". We could stand to see a lot more spells. However, after all the editions that I've seen, I know exactly what happens now if you just start piling on wizard spell after wizard spell (or cleric spell after cleric spell, or any other class).
What's the fix to this? I think we should go back and visit some 2nd edition ideas for wizards. Specifically, the Paths of Power idea that was in one dragon magazine (Dragon #216 in fact). In that, each wizard learned a "path of power" and that allowed them to learn certain spells that are on that paths lists. Then some paths may depend upon you having earlier paths. So, for simplicity, you might have a lesser path of fire and two different greater paths... maybe a greater path of fire (which has fire evocations, summonings, wards, etc...) and a greater path of area effects (which is strictly area effects of differing elements)... there similarly could be a path of abjuration... a path of shadow magic... etc...
I know this wasn't the original point of this thread, so I think I'll start a new thread specifically for developing this rather than hijack this. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4427 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2017 : 13:00:39
|
| Also, I feel I must apologize to CorellonsDevout for participating in the hijacking of this thread from Realms of different editions and to a, yet again, discussion on the merits and perceived faults of the editions themselves. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2017 : 14:48:24
|
Well, any 'perceived faults' I got from listening to other people who were playing 4e. All my own opinions are based solely on the PHB, which did feel a little 'overbalanced' to me. Maybe it was more of a 'repetition' thing than a 'all classes feel the same' thing. I just remember people saying every encounter was like "do same thing, roll dice,rinse & repeat". And it didn't feel like the fighter was swinging a sword, or the mage was casting spells - everyone was using 'powers'.
Coming up with 'inventive ways' to get past something was no longer a thing, and that used to be a big part of D&D. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 23 Feb 2017 14:50:03 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4427 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2017 : 19:55:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Well, any 'perceived faults' I got from listening to other people who were playing 4e. All my own opinions are based solely on the PHB, which did feel a little 'overbalanced' to me. Maybe it was more of a 'repetition' thing than a 'all classes feel the same' thing. I just remember people saying every encounter was like "do same thing, roll dice,rinse & repeat". And it didn't feel like the fighter was swinging a sword, or the mage was casting spells - everyone was using 'powers'.
Coming up with 'inventive ways' to get past something was no longer a thing, and that used to be a big part of D&D.
I think that's really disappointing if that was their experiences with 4e. My group approached 4e just like we do every other version of D&D. You can try anything but there's no guarantee it'll work BUT powers are sort of like trump cards for the most part.
One of our first adventures illustrated just how easily PCs could get past something using inventive ways to solve issues. It was a Forgotten Realms adventure called Menace of the Icy Spire (Dungeon #159) that takes place not too far from Loudwater. The entire area is covered in ice and snow and this tower, once owned by a dwarf warlock named Draigdurroch, cursed it. The PCs approached the main door of the tower but it was covered in ice. The Fighter tried to bash his way in but it would take forever so the wizard cast Scorching Burst on the door and the ice melted greatly, allowing the Fighter to burst his way in.
Another time a Fighter used Cleave to cut through the wooden support pillars of a balcony to knock it over and put the snipers on the ground that had been harassing the party during a battle.
Then there was this other time we had a Drow Ranger (using a bow primarily, not a Drizzt clone) that used his Faerie Fire ability to light up a guard then action point (1 free action) to fire two arrows at the closes candles, plunging the entire room in darkness except for the target. Because he lit up like a Christmas tree, he was exposed giving everyone else combat advantage (a +2 bonus to attack rolls and Rogues can do things like Sneak Attack) because he was so easy to see AND he had to make perception checks because of the light he gave off in a darkened room made his visibility almost nothing.
Now that being said I can't comprehend the reason WHY when people saw 4e's powers in colored-boxes and decided that "This thing can only be used the the vacuum of combat an nowhere else." OR why they didn't express an interest in interacting with the wider world or using their abilities in unique ways Other than "I attack the target again with x,y,z power."? To me it's absolutely mind boggling. Maybe it was the DM that didn't encourage it? Maybe it was a lack of specifically saying in BIG BOLD LETTERS "Hey, you can do stuff that ISN'T listed in a Green, Red, or Gray box to overcome challenges." from the PHB or DMG?
Like I said we approached the game just like every other one. Wanna use Lance of Faith (radiant at-will prayer that has a range of about 50-ft.) to light up a corridor? Go ahead! Wanna use your Astral Wasp conjuration (wizard spell, conjures a wasp) to hop down a hallway and set off any traps? Be my guest! Need to push a medium or large size object off a ledge or a pedestal, Tide of Iron (fighter at-will exploit that slams shield into target) OR just make a Strength check. Maybe 4e's original adventures and the ones showcased early on just didn't prop up what exactly 4e could do or maybe the entire format of the game threw people off from what they were used to. A large format change can easily alter people's perception of their usage and flexibility. Because the attack is in a box might tell them, subconsciously, that it has one intended use, cannot be used outside of said box, and deviation is prone to brokeness. I'm not sure?
|
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2017 : 01:18:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Also, I feel I must apologize to CorellonsDevout for participating in the hijacking of this thread from Realms of different editions and to a, yet again, discussion on the merits and perceived faults of the editions themselves.
Lol, no worries. I'm glad this is an active thread.  |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2017 : 05:03:26
|
| I'm just happy to see a peaceful, reasonable discussion on the different rulesets. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 25 Feb 2017 : 21:28:32
|
I don't feel qualified to discuss 4E (rules or Realms) in detail, since I've deliberately rejected playing it, lol. Ditto for 5E.
I cut my teeth on 1E, playing with a bunch of antisocial AD&D Gygaxian grognards who made me feel like a complete noob. I earned my DM screen playing AD&D 2E, but (for better or for worse) I found the Realms somewhat contrived and constrained so I migrated to Planescape and beyond. I was initially apprehensive about 3E but eventually found it immensely enjoyable. I've tried 4E rules (in a 2E-/3E-era Realms setting) but wasn't particularly impressed, to me it seemed more videogame than tabletop game. (And to me it seemed obvious, wonderful, and terrifying that as D&D evolved it inspired RPG genres which in turn evolved into inspirations for D&D.)
The secret to enjoying any edition and every edition of D&D is to love your setting. WotC's published canon be damned! It's your world, your rules, you do what you want any way you want it done. Why abide by things you dislike? What reason to maintain strict and rigid compliance with things you dislike other than fear of incompatibility with future things you'll likely dislike? It's not like anything you and your group can come up with is going to worse than any of the "officially published" things you already find distasteful. Maybe my opinion is a Gygaxian legacy ... in the beginning, (A)D&D encouraged us to imagine and invent whatever we wanted, not to buy whatever they sold, and there's little point in "grinding" through "boring parts" in D&D - it's ideally a game filled with endless challenges - unlike a video game where the unenjoyable grind pays off in some "final" battle. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Varl
Learned Scribe
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 25 Feb 2017 : 22:38:32
|
I stopped collecting at 2nd edition. I has systems I like, rules I can live with and it leaves you as DM with plenty of possibility for house rulings for the things you want to change.
As for mages, I also never cared for how few spells they received at low levels, but I figured that was an acceptable trade off for the power curve. Still, as DM, I have zero reservations about giving out my fair share of low level magic items, trinkets and cantrip castable items to help alleviate what seems to be a universal AD&D truth regarding mages. So much of playing a successful (and long lived) mage isn't entirely about what they can cast or deploy, it's about how they deploy it. Even so, one-shot 2e mages make deployment extremely difficult, which is why my treasure dispersement regarding disposable low level mage items is probably greater than most. |
I'm on a permanent vacation to the soul. -Tash Sultana |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 25 Feb 2017 : 23:51:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I don't feel qualified to discuss 4E (rules or Realms) in detail, since I've deliberately rejected playing it, lol. Ditto for 5E.
What I saw in the early days of the 4E rules was enough to turn me away. I don't say a lot about those rules because I didn't touch them.
I've similarly not touched the 5E rules, but it's not out of any objection to them -- it's because I'm playing Pathfinder. I even signed up at last year's GenCon to play what I thought was going to be a 5E game. (It turned out it was a board game, and they'd given away my spot by the time I found them -- they were not where they were listed as being. They were going to chase away a general ticket holder to accommodate me, but I was very irritated, by that point, and declined.)
I'd say that like 90% of what I've heard about the 5E rules is positive. Maybe not rave reviews, but generally positive. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 26 Feb 2017 : 18:13:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I don't feel qualified to discuss 4E (rules or Realms) in detail, since I've deliberately rejected playing it, lol. Ditto for 5E.
What I saw in the early days of the 4E rules was enough to turn me away. I don't say a lot about those rules because I didn't touch them.
I've similarly not touched the 5E rules, but it's not out of any objection to them -- it's because I'm playing Pathfinder. I even signed up at last year's GenCon to play what I thought was going to be a 5E game. (It turned out it was a board game, and they'd given away my spot by the time I found them -- they were not where they were listed as being. They were going to chase away a general ticket holder to accommodate me, but I was very irritated, by that point, and declined.)
I'd say that like 90% of what I've heard about the 5E rules is positive. Maybe not rave reviews, but generally positive.
The seeds are there in 5e, but it needs work. I know this is counter intuitive to even some of the things that I've said, but maybe WotC is going the right path in releasing new rules slowly. I know I want everything NOW, but realistically if they're looking over other people's ideas (that's a big IF mind you) and looking at ways to actually improve it... they could start coming out with some options that are really good by tweaking various ideas that people float.
I guess that's kind of why I've been exceptionally curious about other continents, Abeir, etc... for about the past year. They're busy fleshing out Faerun. Some ideas are good. Some aren't. But, expansion into the other areas involves looking at old ideas and redreaming them, with new rulesets. What I'm finding are some interesting twists that I never knew existed because I never really studied the lore in those areas, because way back when I didn't have the money for those books. So, then it becomes, how can we make these areas (or some undeveloped areas) new and different.
My latest thoughts that there might be some areas of Abeir that actually HAVE the manifestations of the gods walking amongst them is making for a really intriguing idea for me. This idea that the worlds were split perfectly and by the will of an overgod just don't please me as much as it was some "uncontrolled act of creationism" meant to maybe create an emergency world should all life on one be destroyed (as happened during the shadow epoch). This uncontrolled act may have placed areas in Abeir under the control of Dawn Titans (Primordials) and other areas under the control of Estelar (demigods/manifestations). In this scenario, it allows me to have the Norse deities, Egyptian deities (Mulhorandi Pantheon), Untheric deities (Sumerian and Babylonian Pantheon), and Maztican deities (Maztican Pantheon) on different continents of Abeir at various times in the past.
For the Norse deities, I'm picturing Annam as more like Bergelmir the child of the male giant that was born to Ymir from the sweat of his armpit (that giant was Thrudgelmir, and he "drowned in Ymir's blood"), and NOT being Odin despite the similarities. Thus, Annam fathered the giant pantheon, but he's like the grandson of Ymir... and this fits with the giants coming around after the shadow epoch.
I maybe picture the first "man" that was licked from the ice to actually be Ulutiu (in Norse myth, this was Buri). Ulutiu/Buri has a son named Bor with SOMEONE (lots of options here). Bor "marries" a "primordial"/"giant" named Bestla, and they produce Odin, Vili, and Ve. The combined work of Odin, Vili, and Ve create the first humans from an ash and an elm tree (these being different humans than say those created by the Maztican/Mulhorandi/Untheric Pantheons).
Now, who Ymir is... what happened to Bor and Bestla... what happened to Vili and Ve... these can all be unexplained mysteries that maybe had some deaths occurring during the Shadow Epoch. Ymir's death could even be related to the ending of the shadow epoch, and perhaps the remains of his body are used to fix the crystal sphere (much as how Arambar's remains are later used to fix the sky of Abeir).
******* belong from the Norse Creation myth******
Some of the other melting ice took the form of a cow, Auðhumla. From her teats ran four rivers of milk, enough to nourish Ymir. She fed off the ice, licking the salty blocks. Her licking formed one of the blocks into the shape of a man. The shape became animated, and the man named Búri walked free out of the ice.
Búri had a son called Bor, who married Bestla, the daughter of a giant. They produced three sons, Óðin, Vili, and Vé.
The three sons of Bor had no use for Ymir and his growing family of brutish giants. They attacked and killed Ymir. So much blood flowed from Ymir's body that it drowned all the other giants except for Bergelmir and his wife, who rode away in a hollowed out tree trunk floating on a sea of gore. All the giants today are descended from them.
Óðin, Vili, and Vé took Ymir's body to the center of Ginnungagap. From his body, they made the world. Ymir's flesh became the earth, and his unbroken bones the mountains. From his teeth and bone fragments, they made rocks and stones. They used his blood to make the lakes and ocean encircling the world. They raised Ymir's skull over the earth to make the sky and placed a dwarf at each of the four corners to hold up the sky. Glowing embers from Múspell were thrown into the sky to make the sun and moon and stars and planets. Ymir's brains were thrown into the sky to make the clouds. Ymir's eyebrows were used to make a fortification around the world, to protect against the giants. Inside the fortification is Miðgarð, the realm of man.
One day, Óðin, Vili, and Vé were walking along the land and came across two trees with their roots ripped out of the ground. One was an ash, the other an elm. They fashioned these into the first man and woman. Óðin breathed into them the spirit of life. Vili provided consciousness, wits, and a feeling hearts. Vé gave them the gifts of hearing and sight. The man was called Ask (ash) and the woman Embla (elm), and they were given Miðgarð in which to live. All the races of men are descended from them.
|
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 27 Feb 2017 : 00:11:53
|
I've played quite a bit of each of Basic, 3e, 4e, and 5e. I don't think there have been any "bad" editions of the game, though a very fair criticism of 4e can be levelled at it for its de-emphasis on roleplaying.
5e is by far the easiest to run, which makes it great for expanding the hobby and getting new people involved. I went to a bar/games place the other day and everyone in there was playing it, and it was the broadest scope of people I've seen in the hobby. It was really cool to see. I've had the most pure fun playing 5th edition, and it's the edition for me where more interesting and fulfilling situations have come out of playing it. A potential downside of the "rules-lite" approach is that there are often rules questions that just aren't answered by the core books, leaving the situation to the DM. This is a problem for some groups, not a problem for others.
4e was the best balanced. The combat system was actually a brilliant thing - my group happily spent hours on the miniatures grid, carefully plotting their actions out for the best tactical advantage. It was a very rewarding combat system. However, combat took sooooooo long that it left very little room in the game for actual roleplaying. That edition of D&D, looking back, felt more like a way to link combats together rather than a roleplaying system. To expand beyond that took a confident and 4th-ed experienced DM. I've moved on, and I won't ever return to the system - but at the same time, my longest running campaign was a 4th edition one. My players at the time loved it, so I don't knock it too hard, but I need more roleplaying focus for my own satisfaction.
3rd ed is what I cut my teeth as a DM on. I like having a rule for almost everything, and when a rule in 5th ed is a bit light for my liking, I often look part to the 3e books for ideas and guidance. I had a lot of fun in 3rd edition, and I found the design of the books to be the most inspiring. Though I faded from the hobby for a while just before 3.5 took off, I'm sad to hear that it became so "broken" (such a loaded word) as time went on. I'd consider returning to it if 5th edition didn't run so seamlessly.
Basic is mostly just childhood memories, so not much to say on that one. I remember people dying a lot, but maybe that was our poor understanding of what the game was. Still had fun.
I actually spend most of my "lore-time" reading books from the 1e-2e era, which seems to be the era during which the Realms endured the strongest support. |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 27 Feb 2017 : 00:49:50
|
I don't understand why people say rules = roleplaying. I've only DMed 4e and a bit of 5e, and in my 4e days my players roleplayed a lot. While, in my days of 3.5 player, we didn't had much roleplaying as my first DM always solved all stuff (even non-combat situations) through dice rolls.
In my experience, roleplaying depends on how players and DMs approach to the game, not to the rules themselves. The rules exist to cover stuff that is not the focus of roleplaying. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
Edited by - Zeromaru X on 27 Feb 2017 00:50:32 |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 27 Feb 2017 : 01:05:32
|
| Every table is different and experiences the game differently, I can only report what I saw at my table. What I said is based on having seen the same players play the game across the different editions. It may be vastly different from your experience - we just found when we spent the vast majority of sesions in combat, there was obviously less time spent out of combat (where there is more room for significant roleplaying). That said, many DMs found ways to reduce combat time and make the system work for them. My players still roleplayed in 4th ed, but it was mostly within combats, purely because of how long they took. 4th ed rules = less roleplaying for us, but as you say, YMMV hugely between tables. We still had lots of fun with it. |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
Edited by - KanzenAU on 27 Feb 2017 01:11:52 |
|
|
|
TomCosta
Forgotten Realms Designer
USA
954 Posts |
Posted - 27 Feb 2017 : 01:23:18
|
Having started playing 1977, I've played every edition except OD&D (which I've seen and read). 1E basically introduced the world to the game. The rules were kind of a hot mess -- complex in the writing and inconsistent rolling (sometimes high is good, sometimes not, sometimes you roll a d20, sometimes not) though that was part of the fun. Basic D&D was, well, basic. Hated it's lack of options -- all elves were gish, all dwarves were fighters, bah. 2E cleaned up the rules presentation of 1E a fair amount and brought us all the settings. FR began to hit its stride. Planescape and others. Some awesome stuff. The lore overfloweth. 3E and 3.5E added consistency, tons more options, but also more complexity (Statting up the big bad guy was fun, but it could literally take you hours and a good fight could easily take the same). Pathfinder is 3.75E. The setting is great and in many ways better thought out than FR was once it left Ed's hands (especially before Steven Schend, Julia Martin, Eric Boyd, and others came along to fix things)
4E changed so much about the game, bringing in elements of video games and Magic the Gathering, greater balance than had existed before, and a return to simpler bad guys. But I think to its downfall, it changed the presentation of the game, making it seem unfamiliar. So many elements lost much of their lore. Monster descriptions often became somewhat uninspiring and while every character had a suite of cool abilities, the actual mechanics of the abilities was often bland because they seemed like every other classes mechanics (thus the impression to many that it gave up on the role playing part). Battles were even longer (again making it seem as though role playing was less important) which given that monsters were simpler was saying something. They blew up the Realms (which resulted in some neat elements, but they still blew up the Realms). In the end, after giving it a shot for a year or two and recognizing some good things about 4E, 4E still drove me away from D&D and the Realms for a time, which was kinda sad to me.
5E is, to me at least, everything they billed it as. It has the clearer and more familiar presentation of 3.5E, most of the balance of 4E, with more of the simplicity of 1E and 2E. Battles can happen in the Theater of the Mind and be quick, or you can use miniatures and have a grand battle to mix it up (in the manner of 3E or 4E). The only thing 5E really needs is more Realms supplements(I'm hoping to post one focused on character options, "Forgotten Characters of the Realms" on DM's Guild in early March). I was a huge fan of the format used at the heyday of 3.5E the best -- Unapproachable East, Shining South, Underdark, etc. Each had a large amount of lore, plenty of good ideas, and a nice amount of crunch for characters and DM's. |
Edited by - TomCosta on 27 Feb 2017 01:23:53 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 27 Feb 2017 : 04:27:50
|
I think that 2E was the only edition to really handle monsters correctly. (Note: I've not perused any 5E monster books).
In 2E, we were given info on how monsters lived/existed. How they gathered, how they mated, where they lived, how they approached a fight, their appearance and variations of that, any odd quirks about them (like griffons loving horsemeat), things like that. And we had uses for their body parts, after separating them from the monster.
After 2E, monsters went back to how they were in 1E: stats, a couple lines about combat, and if you're lucky, a line describing their appearance. Monsters were reduced back to damage dealt and XP awarded.
There were some exceptions, like the Monsternomicon books for the Iron Kingdoms and some of the Revisited stuff for Pathfinder, but aside from those outliers, we've gone back to monsters just sitting around, waiting to be killed. And I really dislike that. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Editions
