PDA

View Full Version : Why doesn't anyone play dnd 4e?!?!?!?!?!?



Pages : [1] 2

CrazedBanana
2009-05-25, 09:37 PM
I really like DnD. Well, I like the 4e of it anyway. I tried playing 3.5e, and fell on my a**. So I'm wondering, WHY DOESN"T ANYONE PLAY 4E ON THIS WEBSITE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

The Glyphstone
2009-05-25, 09:41 PM
It's only CR5 - don't worry guys, we can kill it. Anyone have some alchemist's fire on hand? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/troll.htm)

Kroy
2009-05-25, 09:47 PM
This isn't really an appropriate topic (as in, it doesn't really fit with the community the playgrounders have built, not against the rules. Plus, it's like re-igniting the edition wars). What do you expect us to say? "I hate 4th ed.. It has no real ability to optimize. It feels like rolling a d20, adding one, and hoping to go over 6. I believe it's just WOTC's trying to make money, by cutting off the supply of stuff I paid >$200 for. It also reminds me way to much of WOW. Gary Gygax is ashamed of what became of his game." "Because I am too lazy and too in love with Pun-Pun to switch over." "Because I'm an evil Commie-Nazi" "Because I hate the kind of people who play 4th ed." "To spite you." The point is, this thread cannot end well.

P.S. I'm in the first category.
Just realized I'm probably feeding the troll.
http://lh5.ggpht.com/carlos57775/SCobc6EL_hI/AAAAAAAABys/RG0y66Z3ZDY/s288/Don%27t%20feed%20the%20troll.jpg

RavKal
2009-05-25, 09:49 PM
In part, because it's a primitive system. It's like playing Candy Land after you've played Monopoly for years. Also, the complexity of 3.5 is a comfortable tool, sort of like a swiss army knife.

In part, because I've invested a pleasant chunk of cash in my 3.5 books and they aren't in bad enough condition to warrant buying something else. Also, those pages in 4.0 are SUPER MEGA BRIGHT WHITE.

The biggest thing is that I like 3.5 better.

afroakuma
2009-05-25, 09:52 PM
I really like DnD. Well, I like the 4e of it anyway. I tried playing 3.5e, and fell on my a**. So I'm wondering, WHY DOESN"T ANYONE PLAY 4E ON THIS WEBSITE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Because you asked this question.

Right this very moment.

Yes, that's right. It's all your fault.

In seriousness, there is a small base of 4E players on this site. The 3.X presence is just more notable because it's grown over 8 years.

Behold_the_Void
2009-05-25, 09:53 PM
Plenty of people play 4e here, but the game hasn't caught on too much yet. You will note a number of threads around with 4e in them.

Gaiyamato
2009-05-25, 09:55 PM
4.0 == World of Warcraft crammed into to a bastardised D&D system.
I won't say it is rubbish...

...

I don't think I need too. :P

3.x has a bazillion mechanics problems, is seriously broken, but with a good DM can be smoothed out and made to work again.
That gives you a good system (good for a D20 system) with so many options that you can make new characters for nearly a decade and still not really duplicate anything. I make a character every day, at least one, sometimes half a dozen complex characters each and every day. Have done so for a couple of years now. :)
I don't even need to play 3.x games to have fun with the system!
lol.

Though if you look me up on rpol I do indeed play quite a bit. :D

FMArthur
2009-05-25, 10:00 PM
4e's still the new kid on the block, and D&D has so many followers that you can't reasonably expect most to switch over to the latest thing. And despite the editions being numbered, 4th isn't necessarily an upgrade from 3.5th edition, just a different approach to the same idea. Add into that the fact that many people don't like 4e's different approach, and that 3.5e was successful enough to have tons and tons of supplemental material; switching over isn't necessary or urgent.

Matthew
2009-05-25, 10:02 PM
People have different preferences, and they have to go somewhere to discuss them. Although this is not quite like going to Dragonsfoot and asking why none of the posters play D20/3e/4e (many of them actually do), it basically comes down to the same thing. This was always a strongly D20/3e orientated site, it is no surprise that it continues to have a strong following here. That said, I would say that a good 25% of the threads here are now typically about D20/4e (and not reasons why it sucks).

Blackjackg
2009-05-25, 10:03 PM
4.0 == World of Warcraft crammed into to a bastardised D&D system.
I won't say it is rubbish...

...

I don't think I need too. (sic) :P


The world's a funny place. I said exactly the same thing about 3rd edition close to ten years ago, only it was Diablo, not WoW. It took me a long time to get into 3rd ed. (or 3.5, rather... I missed 3.0 entirely), and with the exception of the saving throw system (which is miraculous compared to the old one) I'm still not convinced that it's an improvement over 2nd ed. It's all a matter of perspective.

TheOOB
2009-05-25, 10:03 PM
This website has always been the D&D 3.5 website, the official 4e forums have plenty of people who play 4e. There are still plenty of people here who enjoy 4e.

Unfortunately this forum also has a lot of people who hold an irrational hatred of 4e and demonize it without following any sort of sensible logic. Just because the rules are simpler and less complex doesn't mean the system lacks depth.

EarFall
2009-05-25, 10:03 PM
I don't find it as stimulating. That being said, I can still enjoy a good game of 4e. I just find 3.5 better, and it seems to attract a better caliber of player. (it also attracts powergamers... but let's just say 4e seems to written for people n the 80-100 IQ range... not that smart people can't enjoy it, it's just not as fun for them. Like moving from playing chess to checkers. I wouldn't call 4e Candyland...)

Thanatos 51-50
2009-05-25, 10:03 PM
Because spelling, grammar and inflamatory remarks like that cause the 3.xers to lump all of us 4th Eders into the same category.

Honestly, I prefer 4th to 3.5.
There's a few 4th ed games rcruiting and playing on this very site, as well as a number of 4th Ed-centric threads.

The Tygre
2009-05-25, 10:06 PM
I was... kind of maybe thinking of buying it... I mean, Penny Arcade and Kobold Quarterly seem to like it...

(Raises arms in cringing self-defense)

NecroRebel
2009-05-25, 10:06 PM
There's a limited number of DMs onsite. DMing is a lot more work than being a player is, and thus a lot fewer people want to DM than play. Further, play-by-post games are relatively difficult to get started. Most games die out during or shortly after their first battle. That makes it bad for DMs as well, as they have to think up a game concept, recruit, and get things started, only for the game to end stillborn. That's over a week of work - most of which is not fun! - for no payoff at all.

Those DMs and players who are part of ongoing games with enthusiastic and responsible participants, which do exist (I'm DMing one now) are not anxious to give that up. Combined with the limited time people actually have to play due to work or school, most are not willing to randomly start new games all the time.

I've noticed that there's not been any new 4E PbPs starting in the last several days, as I've been interested in joining one to play in. But I realize that there aren't a lot of DMs available at this time of year, so I just stay calm and keep waiting. I suggest you do the same, or, in the alternative, figure out a plot and such to DM a game of your own.

Rutskarn
2009-05-25, 10:07 PM
4.0 == World of Warcraft crammed into to a bastardised D&D system.
I won't say it is rubbish...

...

I don't think I need too. :P



In part, because it's a primitive system. It's like playing Candy Land after you've played Monopoly for years. Also, the complexity of 3.5 is a comfortable tool, sort of like a swiss army knife.


Oh, come now.

Don't mistake 4E's approachability and streamlined nature for simplicity. Just ask a powergamer--there's as much tactical depth in 4E as in any other game, even if a few items didn't make it onto the equipment list and some skills are left to the discretion of the DM.

And that's just on the mechanical level. Obviously, on the RP level, there's nothing reducing the amount of depth possible. In fact, there are those that argue that the removal of "social skills" as numerical constructs deepens the gameplay in this respect.

Disclaimer: I, myself, am a 3.5 gamer, though I own the 4E books.

ZeroNumerous
2009-05-25, 10:07 PM
In part, because it's a primitive system. It's like playing Candy Land after you've played Monopoly for years.

As a great man once said: You've obviously never known the frustration of being stuck in the Molasses Swamp.

Rockphed
2009-05-25, 10:08 PM
Unfortunately this forum also has a lot of people who hold an irrational hatred of 4e and demonize it without following any sort of sensible logic. Just because the rules are simpler and less complex doesn't mean the system lacks depth.

As evidenced by quite a few posts higher up on the page. Such people really need to chill.

As for why NOBODY plays 4e, I cannot say. For myself, I really don't have the time to play any edition right now. If I had the time, I would play 4th for various reasons that I won't list so as not to feed the trolls. They will cry bloody murder whether I give good reasons or not, so I feel like being lazy.

Thanatos 51-50
2009-05-25, 10:09 PM
I've noticed that there's not been any new 4E PbPs starting in the last several days, as I've been interested in joining one to play in. But I realize that there aren't a lot of DMs available at this time of year, so I just stay calm and keep waiting. I suggest you do the same, or, in the alternative, figure out a plot and such to DM a game of your own.

I'm still looking for a venue to try out a Shadar-Kai Wizard using Dragon 371 and Complete Arcane.
>.>

Recaiden
2009-05-25, 10:09 PM
We do. Not as many though. Oversimplified system, less time, resentment of WoTC, all sorts of reasons.

NecroRebel
2009-05-25, 10:11 PM
I'm still looking for a venue to try out a Shadar-Kai Wizard using Dragon 371 and Complete Arcane.
>.>

Yeah, I've been interested in a Storm Sorceror since I was flipping through Arcane Power last Thursday.

Also, you need to check up on Sailors on the Astral Sea more if you're still playing. We're waiting on you again :smallannoyed:

EarFall
2009-05-25, 10:11 PM
Oh, come now.

Don't mistake 4E's approachability and streamlined nature for simplicity. Just ask a powergamer--there's as much tactical depth in 4E as in any other game, even if a few items didn't make it onto the equipment list and some skills are left to the discretion of the DM.

Disclaimer: I, myself, am a 3.5 gamer, though I own the 4E books.

The approachability doesn't make it simple, it makes it at a lower level, and streamlining makes it more simple, but not in the way that i think he meant it. I guess my biggest beef with 4e is a I hate the concept. I can have fun playing it, but all of it is based on balanced and ignoring all sense of logic. You can sell items for 1/5 their value. Wonderful. Even if you craft your own? Apparently. For no other reason than you are a PC. I train in all the social skills, and make magic items. But no one buys... because I'm a PC. Makes no sense.

That's a minor example. Sure, many would ignore it, but if the world makes no sense or hands out arbitrary restrictions, all its doing is moving back to 1e and 2e - you can't do it, but an NPC can.

Rutskarn
2009-05-25, 10:15 PM
The approachability doesn't make it simple, it makes it at a lower level, and streamlining makes it more simple, but not in the way that i think he meant it. I guess my biggest beef with 4e is a I hate the concept. I can have fun playing it, but all of it is based on balanced and ignoring all sense of logic. You can sell items for 1/5 their value. Wonderful. Even if you craft your own? Apparently. For no other reason than you are a PC. I train in all the social skills, and make magic items. But no one buys... because I'm a PC. Makes no sense.

That's a minor example. Sure, many would ignore it, but if the world makes no sense or hands out arbitrary restrictions, all its doing is moving back to 1e and 2e - you can't do it, but an NPC can.

While I take issue with the offhand use of "lower level", this is otherwise a perfectly legitimate reason not to like it.

EarFall
2009-05-25, 10:19 PM
While I take issue with the offhand use of "lower level", this is otherwise a perfectly legitimate reason not to like it.

My apologies. I do not mean to infer that an inferior intellect person plays 4e, in fact, the smartest one in our group actually prefers it. I merely meant to say the game itself is geared towards those who probably normally don't gravitate towards D&D intellectually.

TheEmerged
2009-05-25, 10:26 PM
Well, I guess I and my local gaming group always *have* been a bunch of nobodies :smallcool:

Jokes aside, I'm old enough to remember the *exact same arguments* when 3.0 came out. Even the "they've simplified it to make it more like a video game" one and the "they've RUINED dual-classing" one. Frankly, as someone that plays 4e and WoW? That video game comparison carries a LOT less weight than people think it does. And I assure you, people thought all the changes in what we now call 2nd Edition were mistakes too.

I'm not saying 4e is perfect -- but then, neither was 3.x and neither will 5e be.

sonofzeal
2009-05-25, 10:26 PM
For all its faults, 4e is one of the better tactical wargames on the market. Still, I prefer a system that at least attempts to explain itself and make "real-world" sense, at least for my roleplaying. I've played 4e, enjoyed it very much, and would welcome the opportunity to play it again. It's a better tactical wargame than 3e ever was. But it's less of an RPG, so I don't expect to ever fully leave 3e.

DamnedIrishman
2009-05-25, 10:26 PM
I want to say that it is significantly because nobody is daft enough to shell out their hard-earned money for a whole new set of rulebooks when they're perfectly happy with the 3.5ed books they've already spent vast amounts of money on.

Sir Homeslice
2009-05-25, 10:26 PM
the official 4e forums have plenty of people who play 4e.

90& of the people that populate Gleemax's 4e forums are idiots.

RavKal
2009-05-25, 10:27 PM
As a great man once said: You've obviously never known the frustration of being stuck in the Molasses Swamp.

It's true, I was a Hi-Ho-Cheerio kid. And before anyone else comments on my Candy Land metaphor, chill.

I've played 4.0 and I found parts of it interesting, and it does seem more streamlined and shiny than 3.5, which leads me to another metaphor:

3.5 is sorta like the Millennium Falcon. Let that sink in.

Rutskarn
2009-05-25, 10:29 PM
90& of the people that populate Gleemax's 4e forums are idiots.

You know, that's true of almost every forum.

Gleemax, in particular, it's true. Really, the only thing that changes occasionally is what kind of idiots inhabit it.

Previously, it was anti-4E morons. Now, it's pretty much pro-4E morons, supposedly. I don't see much of a difference.

DamnedIrishman
2009-05-25, 10:31 PM
You know, that's true of almost every forum.


Mainly, it's true of the internet.

There's something about a keyboard that allows people to completely avoid the use of their brain.

Proven_Paradox
2009-05-25, 10:33 PM
Ignoring the obvious troll, I would point those lamenting the lack of 4E games on this site (which, at a glance, seems to be accurate) over to Myth Weavers (http://www.myth-weavers.com/forumdisplay.php?f=141). They seem to have about a 50/50 mix of 3.5/4E at the moment (again, at a glance; your mileage may vary). Maybe try your luck there.

I'm a 3.5 gamer (unless I'm with friends--I'll play what my friends are playing usually in that kind of environment) but that doesn't mean I hate 4E players. I just don't like the game as much.

Nightson
2009-05-25, 10:34 PM
People don't like change.

Sir Homeslice
2009-05-25, 10:36 PM
Previously, it was anti-4E morons. Now, it's pretty much pro-4E morons, supposedly. I don't see much of a difference.

Actually nowadays it's both at the same time, which is why I generally try to steer clear, or at least avoid posting at all, in the general discussion forum.


There's something about a keyboard that allows people to completely avoid the use of their brain.
Penny Arcade said this in the best possible way. I, however, cannot remember it for the life of me.

Eldrys
2009-05-25, 10:37 PM
I think that 4E is fine, but not if you see it as a continuation of the 3.5 game. Using Candyland and Monopoly as an example again, Monopoly is completely different from Candyland and if you want play a different game fine, but playing candyland is not just the less advanced version of Monopoly.

IF anyone understands what I'me trying to say, I comend you, because I kind of lost track of my thoughts and just stated what I think i was thinking.

I'me bad with words

I was sitting whith the post screen up so I missed around 8 posts.

Gaiyamato
2009-05-25, 10:38 PM
The world's a funny place. I said exactly the same thing about 3rd edition close to ten years ago, only it was Diablo, not WoW. It took me a long time to get into 3rd ed. (or 3.5, rather... I missed 3.0 entirely), and with the exception of the saving throw system (which is miraculous compared to the old one) I'm still not convinced that it's an improvement over 2nd ed. It's all a matter of perspective.

Must agree. Took me a while to really get into 3.x system instead of 2.x.
Mind you moving from 1.x to 2.x was the easiest change I ever made. lol.
With the huge array of material and options for 3.x it has improved quite a lot and they essentially brought back many of the things I liked about 2.x as optional rules etc. and even managed to expand on them quite well.

Maybe 4.0 will eventually become better, but it really is just watered down way to far now for my liking. 3.x was bad enough with simplification. But 4.0 is just a hack and slash kiddie rper's wet dream. Not my scene. :P

But power to those who like it. Though I have no interest with playing D&D with them. lol.

Rutskarn
2009-05-25, 10:40 PM
But 4.0 is just a hack and slash kiddie rper's wet dream. Not my scene. :P


Okay, again, this is hardly a fair judgment.

\/ ...huh?

DamnedIrishman
2009-05-25, 10:43 PM
No, it works a kiddie game. Basically, you play through the Tomb of Horrors backwards through the versions, and that's an intense roleplaying education.

ZeroNumerous
2009-05-25, 10:49 PM
3.5 is sorta like the Millennium Falcon. Let that sink in.

Han Solo...! :smallfurious:


Penny Arcade said this in the best possible way. I, however, cannot remember it for the life of me.

Anonymous + Human + Internet = Stupid?

Rutskarn
2009-05-25, 10:51 PM
Han Solo...! :smallfurious:



Anonymous + Human + Internet = Stupid?

Technically, it was Person + Anonymity + Audience =

...unpleasant person.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2009-05-25, 10:53 PM
Another reason I believe 4e isn't played as much here is the focus on maps and squares. Feet and similar measurements work much better for PbP games, as does a lack of small scale movement. 4e is, in my opinion, an amazing battle system for tactics, but it lacks the ability to convert to easy online play without some sort of mapping system, which, quite frankly, is a lot of work.

Badgercloak
2009-05-25, 11:09 PM
The main reason why I personally don't is simple. I like 3.5 and don't see a need to spontaneously convert to 4e.

tcrudisi
2009-05-25, 11:11 PM
I can have fun playing it, but all of it is based on balanced and ignoring all sense of logic. You can sell items for 1/5 their value. Wonderful. Even if you craft your own? Apparently. For no other reason than you are a PC. I train in all the social skills, and make magic items. But no one buys... because I'm a PC. Makes no sense.

That's a minor example. Sure, many would ignore it, but if the world makes no sense or hands out arbitrary restrictions, all its doing is moving back to 1e and 2e - you can't do it, but an NPC can.

That's a good question: why can a NPC sell items for 100% of their value, but PC's can only sell it for 1/5? Well, it breaks down to economics. How many people in the world can use a +3 Short Sword? Oh, not that many? Farmers and peons aren't so good at swinging a sword? Okay, well, there are soldiers, right? Oh, they can't afford it. Bummer. So who can afford it and use it? Adventurers. Crap. So there's at most probably 100 people in the world that can use it and afford it. That sounds like a product I, as a merchant, do not want to sell. Wait, you want me to buy this from you for 50% of it's value? You are crazy. I'd have to hire people to guard my store, plus look around for years before I find someone who can and wants to purchase this. All the while that +3 short sword is sitting on my counter, I can't sell my normal products, which would sell like hot-cakes. I'll tell you what, I will offer you 20% of its market value ... that's about the only way I can make a profit on it.

Makes a bit more sense now, doesn't it? In fact, due to the really short amount of time required to make a magical item, I doubt merchants are going to have them made just to sit on their shelves. I see them as going, "Yeah, I can have that made for you... give me 1 day to arrange it." So even the NPC's aren't going to create a bunch of magical items for no reason.

It makes sense, you just have to think about it. Of course, I'm also an economist, so I could quote endlessly about why 4e's economy is actually better than 3.x's. Does that mean 4e is better? No.


People don't like change.

QFT. This, to me, resonates true. D&D 3.x was slow to catch on in my group. We changed over immediately, but we complained and whined about it for a while. When 4e came out, the same thing. But now that we have grown accustomed to the system and know it as well as we know 3.5, all of us but one now prefer 4e. That one? Well, he's a power-gamer and just wants his "I can do EVERYTHING batman wizard" back.

EarFall
2009-05-25, 11:12 PM
The main reason why I personally don't is simple. I like 3.5 and don't see a need to spontaneously convert to 4e.

Exactly, same here, because I like meta-edition feats, and if I spontaneously convert to a new edition, it's a friggin full round action.

Rutskarn
2009-05-25, 11:14 PM
Pretty damn well-thought-out reflections.

Ahhyyysss BURN.

EarFall
2009-05-25, 11:19 PM
Ahhyyysss BURN.

Partially, except that only applies if I'm not selling them other NPCs like our party, and trying to throw them at a merchant. However, they are apparently nonsensically limited. Here's how I mean that. Presumably, a merchant makes a living selling magic items - he also needs to be high level to make good ones. Which IMPLICITLY means there's a market for them. Which means that adventurers can not be *QUITE* as rare as the PH wants players to be. If they are, better bust out the raise deads, and pray you never lose a body, because where are all these replacement PC's coming from? Which means I SHOULD be able to become a merchant and sell items I craft to NPCs. But my DM refuses to let me do such a thing.

Yes, part of the problem is perhaps the DM. And yes, "just because it's not in the rules doesn't mean it can't be done." The problem is, the spirit and tone of the system sides with the DM's decision: Preserve the almighty balance. I agree, I shouldn't be able to make X items where X is however damn many I want, and then sell them at inflated prices - THAT also makes no sense. But having a somewhat reliable income is not : or else NO high level wizard would turn to being one who makes a living off of it, but they do.

Colmarr
2009-05-25, 11:47 PM
I really like DnD. Well, I like the 4e of it anyway. I tried playing 3.5e, and fell on my a**. So I'm wondering, WHY DOESN"T ANYONE PLAY 4E ON THIS WEBSITE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Depends on whether you mean:

Why doesn't anyone play 4e on this website; or

Why doesn't anyone on this website play 4e.


If 1: Play-by-post (which is the only format that the GitP forums support) is not an ideal format for any edition of the game, and the availability of other online methods of play (such as Maptool and BRPG) together with a distinct leaning towards 3.Xe on this particular site means that there are relatively few 4e PbP games here.

If 2: I do. I can think of at least 7 others that do. In no particular order: NecroRebel, Oracle_Hunter, Shadowelf, Asbestos, Burley_Warlock, Mauril_Everleaf, Yakk.

Presumably each of those has a gaming group that also plays 4e (pity them if not).

tcrudisi
2009-05-25, 11:49 PM
Partially, except that only applies if I'm not selling them other NPCs like our party, and trying to throw them at a merchant.

True. If I was running a game and the players wanted to spend the time to find another group of adventurers to sell them the items, I would have them do a skill challenge. It would be difficult, because adventurers (at least good ones) are rare, and adventurers that would want a specific item are even rarer. But I would then let them sell the item for much better than 1/5. Of course, they'd also spend a good while traveling, searching, and streetwising until they found them.


However, they are apparently nonsensically limited. Here's how I mean that. Presumably, a merchant makes a living selling magic items - he also needs to be high level to make good ones. Which IMPLICITLY means there's a market for them. Which means that adventurers can not be *QUITE* as rare as the PH wants players to be. If they are, better bust out the raise deads, and pray you never lose a body, because where are all these replacement PC's coming from? Which means I SHOULD be able to become a merchant and sell items I craft to NPCs. But my DM refuses to let me do such a thing.

In 4e, you must be equal to or higher level than the magic item you wish to create. So if you want to create a level 10 magical item you have to be level 10 or higher. Presumably, a merchant makes a living selling items, not necessarily magical ones. Now, how many merchants are going to be high-level former adventurers that happened to lose all their wealth somehow? Probably not many. So the number of merchants that can create magical items? Well, let's assume two really high level adventurers fell on hard times and are now just too old to keep adventuring to recoup all their wealth. So what about every other magical shop in existence? They can't create their own, so they either have to pay someone to make them or they have to purchase items from the players to resell.

Let's play it your way, though. Let's take my aforementioned +3 Short Sword. Let's say there are more adventurers than what I presumed. How many adventurers would want to use a +3 Short Sword? Well, also according to 4e's rules, you can't buy any magical item above your level. The +3 Short Sword is level 11. Now, how many classes can use a Short Sword? (I'm going to use the generic classes for simplification) We have: cleric, fighter, paladin, ranger, rogue, warlock, warlord, and wizard. (My books are in the car, so I might make a mistake here). Who of those classes are actually proficient in Short Swords? Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, Rogues, Warlords. That's 5/8. We can safely mark out Rogues, as no Rogue in his right mind would use a Short Sword. 4/8 now. Half of the classes can use the Short Sword. Is it useful for most of those other classes? To varying degrees, sure.

But would they buy it when they are level 11? Well, by then they have probably already found a better item. Or if they haven't, they would prefer to have one made that fits their style (a fighter with Weapon Proficiency: Bastard Sword, for example). When you break it down and look at its roots, when a character is going to actually pay for a magical item, they want it made to exact specifications (I want a +3 Reckless Short Sword, please). All said and done, there really isn't much of a market. If there was, then yes, 20% would be small. I just don't see the market in 4e though, so in order to make a profit the shopkeepers must pay you a smaller amount.


Yes, part of the problem is perhaps the DM. And yes, "just because it's not in the rules doesn't mean it can't be done." The problem is, the spirit and tone of the system sides with the DM's decision: Preserve the almighty balance. I agree, I shouldn't be able to make X items where X is however damn many I want, and then sell them at inflated prices - THAT also makes no sense. But having a somewhat reliable income is not : or else NO high level wizard would turn to being one who makes a living off of it, but they do.

Err... once again, I might be mistaken here, but I believe it costs the same amount to make a magic item as it does to buy it. So by that logic, even high-level wizards would not sell items for profit, because there is no profit to be made (though selling them because they like you or believe in what you are doing is something else entirely). Also, there's no real time investment into making magical items either, as I believe it takes only one hour to make a magical item.

Rockphed
2009-05-26, 12:02 AM
Err... once again, I might be mistaken here, but I believe it costs the same amount to make a magic item as it does to buy it. So by that logic, even high-level wizards would not sell items for profit, because there is no profit to be made (though selling them because they like you or believe in what you are doing is something else entirely). Also, there's no real time investment into making magical items either, as I believe it takes only one hour to make a magical item.

Typically, magic items for sale are supposed to be marked up 1d4 x 10% of their listed value in 4th edition. Whether or not anybody actually does such is a different story.

Jack_Banzai
2009-05-26, 12:06 AM
I played 2nd until 3.0 came out, and we (my gaming group) tried to go back to 2nd to wrap up some loose ends, and we found that we liked the new rules better. We enjoyed the customization, we enjoyed the simplified saving throw rules, we liked the new multiclassing.

Then 3.5 came out, and a lot of "no duh" loopholes were closed, but a lot more were opened, and we enjoyed the system, and we were wary of 4th, but we tried the playtest when it came out.

Result? My group and I are completely in love with 4th edition. It's different, sure, very different - but that's not a bad thing. And believe me, it demands a whole different level of tactical thinking than 3.5. Not better, not worse. Just different. A group of 80-100 IQ players (as mentioned earlier in this thread) couldn't possibly survive an encounter in one of my group's campaigns. Not unless they were granted every magic item they wished for maximum optimization (hint: they won't be). A ranger who can dole out dishloads of damage can still be rendered ineffective through superior tactics. A smart wizard with battlefield control can destroy people through clever use of the right powers, without resorting to loopholes or power builds.

It is true that 4th edition is a lot more wargame than previous editions, and that miniature battles are practically necessary rather than optional. But that too is not a bad thing - the simulation of combat bolsters the notion that battlefield control and movement options are now just as, if not more important, than raw damage output or "I win" spell combos. Beautiful. Just beautiful.

And that is why I play 4th edition. Not because 3.5 is bad, or broken, or worse - but because I like the new game. I like it a lot.

Lawless III
2009-05-26, 12:08 AM
The first time I ever played DnD, was about five years ago I think. I must have been about twelve or thirteen at the time. I had been dragged to a superbowl party by my family despite the fact that I loathed sports. My friend and his older brother show up with this huge bag and we all go off into some empty room .
He asks me "Do you wanna play DnD?"
"What's that?" I reply...

Flash forward one year. I have turned from a level one weakling into a high power, dual class, tough as nails, dungeoneering expert. Our huge campaign is over and I decide I want to DM my own. So, I go out and by all the 3.5 core rule books. These books are AMAZING. Seriosly, just look at them. The covers alone are enough to make any nerd mist up a little. The drawings, the descriptions, the whole thing together. They were the coolest items I had ever purchased and they changed my life.

The new books (rules aside) just aren't as cool. Call me stupid or childish if you want, but I see no reason to memorize a whole new set of rules when they just look so lack luster.I don't care that much about mechanics anyway to be honest, and different systems have very little affect on roleplaying. Why should I bother getting new books that in no way empower my self dellusions?....

Shut up, I'm a dragon!!!!

JadedDM
2009-05-26, 12:09 AM
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait...

There's a FOURTH Edition now?

Huh.

.....

*goes back to playing 2E*

Kornaki
2009-05-26, 12:27 AM
3.5 is sorta like the Millennium Falcon. Let that sink in.

It can make the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs?

ghost_warlock
2009-05-26, 12:28 AM
Re: OP - Although I personally prefer 3.5, I'm actually running a "let's give this a shot" 4e game for my buddies. Our first session was on Saturday and second was earlier today. Some enjoy it more than others. My buddy who thought WoW was boring because he didn't want to do professions and "just wanted to kill things" loves 4e. My cousin isn't as fond, although that may be beause his favorite niche is necromancy and creating legions of undead slaves. My girlfriend doesn't really seem to care which system we use, she just wants to shout SNEAK ATTACK! every once in a while. :smalltongue:

Re: 4e economics - As far as I can tell, the only magic items PCs stumble upon are leftover from failed adventurers. Honestly, if I'm going to go to the trouble to craft a magic item that I can only sell for 1/5 of the value, I'm going to use it until I can make something better and then disenchant the sucker. Instead of trying to sell useless items, I can probably make oodles more cash using the residium (sp?) to make a literal circus of unseen servants and floating disks. :smallwink:

Colmarr
2009-05-26, 12:29 AM
It can make the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs?

I imagine he's referring to the fact that it's generally "made of win" yet the hyperdrive goes down without warning at the most inopportune times, leaving you stuck at the bottom of some creature's gullet.

kjones
2009-05-26, 12:37 AM
I imagine he's referring to the fact that it's generally "made of win" yet the hyperdrive goes down without warning at the most inopportune times, leaving you stuck at the bottom of some creature's gullet.

I assumed he was referring to the fact that it is a hunk of junk held together with paper clips and barbed wire.

... maybe I'm just doing it wrong.

magellan
2009-05-26, 01:01 AM
True. If I was running a game and the players wanted to spend the time to find another group of adventurers to sell them the items, I would have them do a skill challenge.

...
So you would give them more money *and* XP?
:smallconfused:

NecroRebel
2009-05-26, 01:06 AM
...
So you would give them more money *and* XP?
:smallconfused:

Finding another adventuring party to sell your excess loot to as a level-appropriate adventure? Yeah, sure. Just give them... Oh, about 40% of their previous level's expected loot less than you would for the same adventure normally, and then let them sell their old, unwanted loot for 40% more than normal. Essentially, you're using their desire to break wealth-by-level as an adventure hook :smallwink:

chiasaur11
2009-05-26, 02:02 AM
I assumed he was referring to the fact that it is a hunk of junk held together with paper clips and barbed wire.

... maybe I'm just doing it wrong.

A flawed, fairly standard system, that, with expert modification and expert maintenance is capable of amazing things, but will still probably crap out on you at the worst possible time?

(So, what system would be the Serenity then? Ungainly looking, and to look at it incredibly flawed, but with a passable mechanic, it can keep on flying well enough forever.)

The Tygre
2009-05-26, 02:17 AM
3.5 is sorta like the Millennium Falcon. Let that sink in.


When Han Solo drives it, even Star Trek (http://www.cracked.com/article_15091_best-worst-star-trek-movies-all-time.html) bows in deference.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-26, 02:27 AM
Did somebody say something about 4E?

. . .

Sorry, my Edition Warz senses were tingling :smalltongue:

EDIT:
Oh, and in before Strawberry! :smallbiggrin:

SilverSheriff
2009-05-26, 02:28 AM
but let's just say 4e seems to written for people n the 50-80 IQ range... not that smart people can't enjoy it, it's just not as fun for them. Like moving from playing chess to checkers. I wouldn't call 4e Candyland...)

Dungeons and Dragons 4th ed is challenging only to those with a lack of Imagination, its like using a complicated coding system for years and then going back to playing with toy-blocks so you can make towers to topple over...:smallsigh:

I am unfortunate enough to have bought the 4th Edition books and then realized that I hated it, committed suicide and been raised by my friends who cursed me so I could never commit suicide ever again...

SolkaTruesilver
2009-05-26, 02:48 AM
Dungeons and Dragons 4th ed is challenging only to those with a lack of Imagination, its like using a complicated coding system for years and then going back to playing with toy-blocks so you can make towers to topple over...:smallsigh:

I am unfortunate enough to have bought the 4th Edition books and then realized that I hated it, committed suicide and been raised by my friends who cursed me so I could never commit suicide ever again...

What I generally dislike of 4e and 3.5e, is that the combat's "clever tactics" will turn more about "I use my ability X then Y at target B-D-E, while you use ability Z". It's a clever cardtrick that you pull in Magic: The Gathering, with more strategy because of localisation of the battle.

One combat we had once in WFRP was a silent crossbow shootout over a channel with an assassin. Some of us were trying to spot and shoot him, and others were trying to draw him in the open by revealing themselves. Now, it's a system that might very easily result into a 1-shot kill.

Or that battle where we had to stuff furniture in the entrance of the dining hall to stop soldiers from coming. Me (wizard) was regulary casting "flashlight" to blind the entering soldiers that were impeded because of the difficult terrain, and they were cut to pieces by the warriors who waited in ambush, and the bowman who readied an aimed shot.

I had more fun playing those original battles then the ones where you win only if you use your class abilities to maximise damage potential. When the combat tactic is about thinking how you will maximise the situation with the tools you have, and less about thinking what spell you are gonna cast, I have more fun.

Satyr
2009-05-26, 02:57 AM
While i don't think that 4th edition D&D is a particular bad game, there are enough quite subjective reasons for me not to like or play it; the most important of those reasons is that the inner logic of the game seems contrived to me and requires a much stronger suspension of disbelief than I like for my games; there is too little interconnection to versimilitude and the way things work in the real world in the rules for my taste.
There are certainly players who have no problems for this and who can enjoy 4th edition gameplay; but for me, the extreme arbitrariness of the way tasks are resoluted is offending for my sense of logic and aesthetics.

Narmoth
2009-05-26, 02:58 AM
Ah, I've tried 4th ed once. Got my ass handled to me because I focused on Cha, diplomacy, skills and role playing in stead og Con, damage, attacks and roll playing

Also, I still prefer 2nd ed. I'm even looking for a simpler system, maybe something like the fighter and thief of 1st ed D&D only, and run a historical campaign

The Tygre
2009-05-26, 03:03 AM
No rules at all.:smallbiggrin:

Like Gary said before he went back home, the big secret of Tabletop RPGs is that you don't need rules.

elliott20
2009-05-26, 03:10 AM
Ah, I've tried 4th ed once. Got my ass handled to me because I focused on Cha, diplomacy, skills and role playing in stead og Con, damage, attacks and roll playing

Also, I still prefer 2nd ed. I'm even looking for a simpler system, maybe something like the fighter and thief of 1st ed D&D only, and run a historical campaign
Fate system is surprisingly easy to run. took my first time players maybe what... 20 minutes to get the hang of the game.

if you want even more streamlined mechanics, Prime Time Adventures. (to the point that PCs basically cannot die unless the players want them to)

KIDS
2009-05-26, 03:15 AM
Yet another flame thread developing due to impatience... eh. While it goes for both sides, some of the answers claiming how superior 3.5 is are downright appaling.

As for the question, I don't know why but I never got the impression that no one played 4E. The ratio seems about even.

Salt_Crow
2009-05-26, 03:17 AM
Yet another flame thread developing due to impatience... eh. While it goes for both sides, some of the answers claiming how superior 3.5 is are downright appaling.

As for the question, I don't know why but I never got the impression that no one played 4E. The ratio seems about even.

Or, it may be indicative of a theory that 4e is so perfect that we don't need to make a thread for just about every wording ;)

Nah... I spent too much money on 3.5 I couldn't afford to go all 4e.

Xefas
2009-05-26, 03:17 AM
I've always found it amusing that 4e gets the rap for being childish, when at the same time, the moment you mention it, it's the 3/3.5 edition folk who jump up first, slinging their unprovoked vitriol at it.

I think those 1st-2nd edition old timers are the really mature ones. They just hang back, confident that no matter how many editions come and go, no one is ever going to show up at their house and take their non-weapon proficiencies away from them.

As for my own experience, my group had mixed feelings about 4th edition at first. One player liked it way more than 3.5, a few people liked it the same, and a few disliked it quite a bit. I loved it when it came out, personally. And we all liked and hated it for the same reason - it was more a throw back to 2nd edition, I think, which is what I started on (and the guy who also liked 4th edition was in my 2nd edition group back in the day).

Basically, in 3/3.5, you're given many complex tools, and told 'this is what you can do, if you want to do that other thing, you need this other tool'. In 2nd and 4th edition, you're given fewer, simpler tools and told 'this is to start you off; now lets get creative'.

The few 4th edition games we played really brought out the imagination in my players. They hardly ever used their standard Powers in the normal way, but rather started making use of the environment and improvising things on the spot. We turned skill challenges into collaborative storytelling events that were often humorous and always epic, win or lose. Monsters became less walking chunks of hit points, and more interesting, distinctive threats that could not only drive a plot, but also have a grand finale of a boss fight.

We went back to playing 3.5 again, but we brought back some of that spark, and it livened up our game, no doubt.

This was my experience, anyway.

Shademan
2009-05-26, 03:43 AM
why?
cus' it is a friggin computer game in book form!
and it reminds me of WoW for some reason.

and I hate WoW.

Kaiyanwang
2009-05-26, 03:56 AM
.
As for the question, I don't know why but I never got the impression that no one played 4E. The ratio seems about even.

You have to consider that there are fools that play both games and enjoy both games. Or maybe play OD&D 1e 2e 3.0 3.5 4th and enjoy all.

I'm a infamous 4th edition hater but I've to recognize that mine it's a flaw not a merit :smallwink:

Comet
2009-05-26, 03:59 AM
Why does everyone compare 4e to a computer game?
It's a boardgame, if anything.

And that's not a bad thing. And yes, it can be played as a non-boardgame too but the mechanics are so streamlined, combat oriented and balanced that it feels like a boardgame. A really good boardgame, but a boardgame still.

3.5 has the same thing with its focus on combat, but it's less of a boardgame and more of a "I win using antimatter and lots of epic magic AND YOU CANT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT" shouting contest. :smalltongue:

I personally prefer other systems than D&D in general. When it comes to D&D, I play 3.5 because I know it better. But I think 4e deserves some praise because it's just so very aware of what it is and doesn't try to do things that it cannot.

That's good game design right there, even if everyone doesn't like it.

Shademan
2009-05-26, 04:05 AM
Why does everyone compare 4e to a computer game?


one of the things that might have done that for me was that someone used the word "aggro" ingame.
and it was the dm.

but seriously, I really get the feel that I'm playing a MMO converted to a pen and paper.
thats why.

Dagren
2009-05-26, 04:24 AM
The world's a funny place. I said exactly the same thing about 3rd edition close to ten years ago, only it was Diablo, not WoW. It took me a long time to get into 3rd ed. (or 3.5, rather... I missed 3.0 entirely), and with the exception of the saving throw system (which is miraculous compared to the old one) I'm still not convinced that it's an improvement over 2nd ed. It's all a matter of perspective.I've heard that before, and it doesn't make sense to me. I play both Diablo and WoW, and they are incredibly similar in most aspects. Are these people saying that 4th ed. is barely distinguishable to 3.5?
I've always found it amusing that 4e gets the rap for being childish, when at the same time, the moment you mention it, it's the 3/3.5 edition folk who jump up first, slinging their unprovoked vitriol at it.

I think those 1st-2nd edition old timers are the really mature ones. They just hang back, confident that no matter how many editions come and go, no one is ever going to show up at their house and take their non-weapon proficiencies away from them.I haven't actually researched this, so it's just speculation, but are the 2nd ed. books still in print? If not, the logical conclusion is that the release of a new version is responsible. I sure don't want to get into a situation where I can't find any new sourcebooks for my preferred version, a threat which may not be there for 2nd ed. players. Of course if they are still in print, just ignore this half of my post.

SolkaTruesilver
2009-05-26, 04:28 AM
I've heard that before, and it doesn't make sense to me. I play both Diablo and WoW, and they are incredibly similar in most aspects. Are these people saying that 4th ed. is barely distinguishable to 3.5?I haven't actually researched this, so it's just speculation, but are the 2nd ed. books still in print? If not, the logical conclusion is that the release of a new version is responsible. I sure don't want to get into a situation where I can't find any new sourcebooks for my preferred version, a threat which may not be there for 2nd ed. players. Of course if they are still in print, just ignore this half of my post.

Well, I sure can't find a printed version of the 3.5 Draconomicon in any store of Quebec now. Trust me, I looked :smallfrown:

elliott20
2009-05-26, 05:02 AM
WoW is similar to diablo2? now THAT'S a bold claim.

Zeta Kai
2009-05-26, 05:15 AM
Sorry, kids. As much as I would love to jump in on another edition war, my infraction points stare me in the face every time I look at one of my own posts, mocking me for my past moments of indiscretion. :smallannoyed:

If it feels darkly good, you shouldn't post it. :smallamused:

EDIT:
Well, I sure can't find a printed version of the 3.5 Draconomicon in any store of Quebec now. Trust me, I looked :smallfrown:

On the helpful side of my karma, Dragonomicon 3E may be out of print, but it's plentiful & cheap on ye ole Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Draconomicon-Dungeons-Dragons-Fantasy-Roleplaying/dp/0786928840/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243333052&sr=1-2).

shadow_archmagi
2009-05-26, 05:31 AM
I've always found it amusing that 4e gets the rap for being childish, when at the same time, the moment you mention it, it's the 3/3.5 edition folk who jump up first, slinging their unprovoked vitriol at it.

I think those 1st-2nd edition old timers are the really mature ones. They just hang back, confident that no matter how many editions come and go, no one is ever going to show up at their house and take their non-weapon proficiencies away from them.


Agreed.

Personally, I feel that rulebooks are, in their very essence, railroads. The thing is, say what you will about the service or speed, 3.5 has a very extensive rail network that goes all kinds of places! You can play a teleport swordsman, a flightless celestial bat that never touches the ground, etc.

I think I may end up switching my group to 4e eventually though, simply because, limited as it's rail system may be right now, the 4e train does appear to be more streamlined. My players never really liked travelling anyway.

RS14
2009-05-26, 06:08 AM
When 4e first came out, I feel like there were more 4e threads here. Particularly in homebrew. Now it seems to have died down, and most of the homebrew threads seem to be for 3.5. Perhaps they have just migrated elsewhere, as it was rather confusing to have two systems discussed in parallel in many threads. Also there is so much hostility to the system. :smallconfused:


I want to say that it is significantly because nobody is daft enough to shell out their hard-earned money for a whole new set of rulebooks when they're perfectly happy with the 3.5ed books they've already spent vast amounts of money on.
That is certainly it for me. I have seen little evidence to suggest that the different editions are better or worse than one another. Just different. I am therefor inclined to play 3.5, as I have done in the past. Besides the monetary cost of switching, it would require adjusting to totally new rules. Furthermore, the 3.5 SRD is a very nice resource. It allowed me to learn the game, and makes a very convenient reference. 4e has no such convenience.

Gaiyamato
2009-05-26, 06:13 AM
The main thing I liekd about moving on from 2nd ed to 3.x was finally losing those silly Thac0 calculations. lol.

But I did really like the way kits work. PRcs are cool, and multiclassing makes much much more sense. But I really prefer kits and templates over the prc and feat method. I do like class options and substitution levels though.

Maybe some sort of 3.x hybrid which converts the prcs to kits.. ?
:)

And the Crusades handbook was the bomb.
It gave highly detailed and awesome rules for running crusades campaigns either histortically accurately or with a fantasy twinge. Very awesome. Those green campaign books kicked ass.

It has been a couple of years since I last played a 2nd ed game, might go and dust off the books and give it a go again some time. :)

potatocubed
2009-05-26, 06:18 AM
I think those 1st-2nd edition old timers are the really mature ones. They just hang back, confident that no matter how many editions come and go, no one is ever going to show up at their house and take their non-weapon proficiencies away from them.

That's because they have a flat 80% chance of successfully ambushing anyone within their lair.

"Your Spot ranks mean nothing here!"

:smalltongue:

Starscream
2009-05-26, 06:25 AM
Also, I still prefer 2nd ed. I'm even looking for a simpler system, maybe something like the fighter and thief of 1st ed D&D only, and run a historical campaign

I thought this would be like the jillion other 4E threads I've read, but I must say I'm surprised at the number of people praising 2nd edition.

Which brings me to one of my main reasons for not playing very much 4th edition: it doesn't fit with the other editions.

I could dig up any first or second edition module I like and convert it to 3.5 with little or no difficulty. Heck, that's exactly what a lot of people have done. The changes in the system may have seemed drastic at the time, but really they were mostly consistent. You might not be able to regress every class or spell from 3.5 back to 2E and have it work, but I doubt you would have any trouble updating an old one.

In OOTS it is strongly implied that there is continuity between editions. Haley's dad for instance was a "First Edition Thief". He's still around. The characters themselves weathered the upgrade from 3E to 3.5 in the very first strip. Not too much changed.

The same can't be said for 4th edition. For the others there was a lot of addition but not much subtraction. For this one they started from scratch, and most 3.5 spells and features simply don't have direct equivalents. Even homebrewing a class is much more difficult, because each one has dozens of different powers.

Somehow I can't imagine 4th edition characters being the descendants of those of the other editions. People would be wondering where all the cool powers went. It just doesn't feel like the same game.

ashmanonar
2009-05-26, 06:42 AM
I don't find it as stimulating. That being said, I can still enjoy a good game of 4e. I just find 3.5 better, and it seems to attract a better caliber of player. (it also attracts powergamers... but let's just say 4e seems to written for people n the 80-100 IQ range... not that smart people can't enjoy it, it's just not as fun for them. Like moving from playing chess to checkers. I wouldn't call 4e Candyland...)

...Really? You're going to assume that intelligence has anything to do with who plays what game?

Criminy.

Sebastian
2009-05-26, 07:13 AM
I don't know about the others. Me? I don't play it because it bore me.

Really, there is not a single thing in the 4e books I've read, be it class, powers, magic items or monsters that made me say "Wow, I'd really like to play one of this/ find one of those in one adventure" unlike other versions of D&D or almost any other roleplaying game I've read. It is not that I hate it, I simply don't care.

P.S. 2nd edition rules. :smallsmile:

Matthew
2009-05-26, 07:13 AM
I haven't actually researched this, so it's just speculation, but are the 2nd ed. books still in print? If not, the logical conclusion is that the release of a new version is responsible. I sure don't want to get into a situation where I can't find any new sourcebooks for my preferred version, a threat which may not be there for 2nd ed. players. Of course if they are still in print, just ignore this half of my post.

They are no longer being printed or sold as pdfs, but they are relatively easily obtainable on the second hand market, sometimes even brand new. However, AD&D has since been recreated as OSRIC (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/), which allows companies to easily publish material compatible with AD&D in the same manner as D20/3e. Perhaps the most successful of these attempts has been the Advanced Adventures line from Expeditious Retreat Press. Some other publishers release products compatible with AD&D without using OSRIC, and others without using the OGL at all. The level of fan support is also very high at places like Dragonsfoot, which hosts entirely free modules and supplements.

There is also the Castles & Crusades game by Troll Lord Games, which is somewhat analogous to an Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Third Edition (or alternative third edition).



I don't know about the others. Me? I don't play it because it bore me.

I have to admit, I played D20/4e by post, and found the combats to be a bit on the boring side (the length of time between posts not withstanding)

Morty
2009-05-26, 07:19 AM
Man, I wish I were studying sociology. Then I could write an essay about how perfectly reasonable people - myself included - completely lose it to a varying degree when talking about the editions of tabletop games. And how a troll post that'd be completely ignored when talking about other subject managed to spark three pages of discussion.

karnalsyn
2009-05-26, 07:42 AM
I have never stopped and read anything about 4e. I have 'heard' about many aspects of it, those of which did not appeal to me....however it's not to say that I wouldn't end up enjoying them if I sat down and really gave it a test run.

However, my group has no intention on changing over to 4e anytime soon. My DM has shelves upon shelves of material ranging from 1e-3.5e and we've only skimmed over perhaps 15-20% of it in our years of playing...and that doesn't take into account the massive 1-20 level module he personally created.

He's converted and re-converted older modules/monsters/etc as each new edition has arrived, but 4e is where the line has been drawn. We have a lifetime of exciting adventures to undertake still, and the chances we'll experience it all before the end of that lifetime are pretty slim.

Kaiyanwang
2009-05-26, 07:43 AM
...Really? You're going to assume that intelligence has anything to do with who plays what game?

Criminy.

Actually, when I've seen the Phane preview, I had the sensation that designer thought:

"Gamers are less smart than our predictions. Here a signal for them"

Ta-daaaa the new phane.

Phane - the time -devouring abomination, now DUMBER!

Calmar
2009-05-26, 07:44 AM
I've noticed a few times that some people actually seem to make a difference between D&D and 4E, which is quite funny I think... :smallsmile:

DamnedIrishman
2009-05-26, 07:48 AM
IIt is true that 4th edition is a lot more wargame than previous editions, and that miniature battles are practically necessary rather than optional.

More miniatures = higher costs = less people prepared to convert to 4e.

I know that many people play with miniatures with 3.5 but quite frankly, I'm cheap. I've got my hardcover 3.5ed PHB, I've got 'legitimately sourced' versions of practically every other rulebook and supplement, why would I want to give WotC even more of my money?

Upgrading versions is a very effective moneyspinner for companies like Games Workshop, as if they stop supporting previous lines then eventually most people have to buy the new version. I think WotC want to have that option, and that means getting players relying on their material which 3.5ed players don't because once they've got the books, all that is needed is a bit of imagination.

Matthew
2009-05-26, 08:01 AM
I've noticed a few times that some people actually seem to make a difference between D&D and 4E, which is quite funny I think... :smallsmile:

I like to draw a distinction between D&D and D20, suits my sense of hubris. :smallbiggrin:

CheshireCatAW
2009-05-26, 08:25 AM
I've played 4E and I just find I don't like it. I'm DMing a group through Keep on the Shadowfell and I can tell that my PC's have passed the peak of their interest. Now, it could very easily be my fault as a DM, but I like to think that I've gone out of my way to allow my characters to make the people they want and play how they want within the scope of the game. While none of them doubt that playing their current characters require less bookkeeping than the old 3.5 ones, I think they feel the lack of customization. Additionally, another aspect of 4E that hurts me is the campaign setting for the FR, which I base most of my adventures in. Well, suffice it to say that I don't use the new FR books very often at all, as after reading through the lot of them, I find that I really don't like the changes at all, and am still rather angry that some items are not expanded upon, or even mentioned, in the books (for what I'm assuming to be DnD Insider exclusive items; being forced to subscribe to DnDi being another thing I dislike) (I'm currently trying to update my 3.5 realms to 4E, but it's proving to be a lot more work than I have time for, and I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough to know if I'm balancing everything out correctly). Additionally, while I can understand the logic that brought WotC to consider way fewer adventurers to focus the spotlight on the PC's more, I find that both me and my group do not like that. I've found that they'd rather be elevated above their peers through hard work, and not due to extinction. We've also never had a problem in my games where a super-powerful wizard would fix whatever the PC's were working on, so that might affect their opinions. Lastly, for myself at least, I don't like the seemingly arbitrary rules. The previously stated item selling prices dependant upon being a PC/NPC for example.

While this is not a complete list, by any means, it covers my main points of dischord with 4E. I like a great many individual aspects of 4E, but as a whole, I'm not excited by it. And that excitement is what compelled me to buy all the other RPG books from all the systems that I do have.

tcrudisi
2009-05-26, 08:35 AM
Man, I wish I were studying sociology. Then I could write an essay about how perfectly reasonable people - myself included - completely lose it to a varying degree when talking about the editions of tabletop games.

Back when the US presidential elections were going on, a new scientific discovery was made concerning how the brain works. As it turns out, once someone makes up their mind about something, the way their brain thinks about that "something" changes. For ease of description, they used Obama, but I'll use spaghetti, though the concept applies to anything and everything.

Once a person makes a decision about whether or not they like spaghetti, they no longer think rationally about it. Instead, during scans it was found that the rational part of the brain is not the one that is used. If I remember correctly, the part of the brain that is used is the same one that is accountable for racism. It makes it incredibly difficult for people to change their opinions once that opinion has been made.

So, for example, say you absolutely love spaghetti. It's the best food ever. Except, later today, it is discovered that spaghetti is the sole cause of war. And it eats babies. And spaghetti is the reason why people die, no matter the cause. Even given all this new information, since the person's mind is made up, they will defend spaghetti ardently. "It tastes good!" they will say. "It has healthy vitamins and minerals!" others might say. But even when presented with that evidence clearly demonstrating how evil and bad spaghetti is, the spaghetti-lover will instead rationalize the negatives away and not even consider them. As such, opinions are hard to change.

That was the jist of the news article, though they used Obama and McCain as their example. I just tried searching for about 10 minutes and I could not find the article, which is a pity because I'd love to re-read it. If someone can find it and send it to me via a PM, I will talk to your DM and make sure you get a shiny magical item out of it. :-P

Anyway, back on track... I'm sure you can see how that could apply to 3.x vs. 4e. Once someone has made up their mind, it is hard to change it. Even if Gary Gygax were to come back and say, "Edition 3.5 is much better than 4e. It's how D&D was supposed to be," then 4e lovers would ignore him and come up with their own reasons why 4e is better ... and vice-versa.

EarFall
2009-05-26, 08:43 AM
A couple of things. First, reading comprehension would be a plus. I SPECIFICALLY said in my quote that "Smart people play 4e, too". I said 4e was WRITTEN at a lower level, not that the people who play it are necessarily dumber. I also said that the person with the highest IQ in our group prefers 4e. It's in the quote you quoted! Please read what I wrote.

All one needs to do is peruse the equipment list. You know, the mundane stuff that every OD&D, BD&D, 1e, 2e, and 3.X player knows to pick up? Most of it isn't in there.

As to the person who talked about Keep on the Shadowfell...

As much as I hate to defend 4e, that isn't 4e itself at fault - that module is completely god-awful to anyone who has played ANY edition of D&D. There are NO interesting NPC's, EVERY trap in that series in the heroic tier is "ZOMGZ GIANT ROBOT THING THAT HAS NO PLACE!" and the encounters are so easy (except that first goblin boss, who might give the players a challenge, although we killed him handily with three players at level one and no 4e experience) that I could throw up.

4e CAN be an enjoyable experience. I merely think you have to ignore a lot of the fluff to have fun. It's a major change. I think the THEME of 4e is terrible and needs to be ignored to have fun. Whereas in 3.5 I need to ignore some of the MECHANICS in order to have fun. This is, of course, my opinion. Some people love the flavor of 4e. I think the flavor of 4e makes all classes feel the same, because it takes away what they're strong and weak against.

It TACTICALLY makes the group work together, but strategically, it completely nerfs it. Yes, you should use your powers to set up other characters. But no, there's no more of the rogue getting clever against things that probably shouldn't be sneak attacked (I'd even be fine if they allowed half sneak against those things, I eventually did in 3.5 after realizing just how much was immune), no more wizards researching different spells after a golem fight. It just seems like a complete step backwards when you take it as a whole.

Individually, there were some start improvements, and the mechanics are actually not bad at all. I dislike the power system itself - it makes fighters hella fun, but it completely alters what the wizard was, for example, and I don't think that's in a good way.

Edit: You might also note I've started as many 4e threads as 3.5 (only about 3 each, but still). I'm not a "4e hater", I merely think one is better than the other. They are both fun, which at the end of the day is what I care about. So I might have a more resounding "hell yeah!" when someone says, "let's play 3.5", but I still am excited to play a game of 4e.

Edit again: Assorted comma errors. I'm sure there's plenty more though, for those who just love 'em.

Volkov
2009-05-26, 08:45 AM
Every time a new edition comes out a substantial number of people will refuse to convert, mainly those people who spent a lot of money for said edition. I spent nearly $3,000 on 3.5e over a period of 3 or so years! I AM NOT CHANGING!!!! $6,000 over 7 years if you include 3e.

3.X didn't get a decade for us to use, it got 6-7 years, it didn't need an update, it wasn't time yet, the previous editions were around for much longer before the next edition came around.

CheshireCatAW
2009-05-26, 08:54 AM
As to the person who talked about Keep on the Shadowfell...

As much as I hate to defend 4e, that isn't 4e itself at fault - that module is completely god-awful to anyone who has played ANY edition of D&D. There are NO interesting NPC's, EVERY trap in that series in the heroic tier is "ZOMGZ GIANT ROBOT THING THAT HAS NO PLACE!" and the encounters are so easy (except that first goblin boss, who might give the players a challenge, although we killed him handily with three players at level one and no 4e experience) that I could throw up.

I've been told this before, and did adjust for it. I changed NPC's so my characters would be interested in them (heck, they spent most of the first session just being in town, chatting up all the major NPC's and challenging them to games of skill), they've just gotten tired of the combats and their characters in short order. Well, to the point, they're not tired with the quest itself, but with the game. Although it was easy for the first timers to play, they're also asking about playing 3.5 or trying out some of my nWoD books. Perhaps theirs is just a problem of playing a system in its infancy before it branches out in customizability.

shadzar
2009-05-26, 08:54 AM
Probably the same reason I don't really play 3.x. I don't need to. I enjoy AD&D2e well enough I don't need all the things in the newer editions.

On a further note, 4th edition is so far removed form what I liked about D&D, if I was going to play it I would have quit playing D&D long ago to play another game as it is another game in regards to the system itself, and I prefer the system in (A)D&D to this new game of 4th edition and its system.

:smallsmile:

EarFall
2009-05-26, 08:59 AM
I've been told this before, and did adjust for it. I changed NPC's so my characters would be interested in them (heck, they spent most of the first session just being in town, chatting up all the major NPC's and challenging them to games of skill), they've just gotten tired of the combats and their characters in short order. Well, to the point, they're not tired with the quest itself, but with the game. Although it was easy for the first timers to play, they're also asking about playing 3.5 or trying out some of my nWoD books. Perhaps theirs is just a problem of playing a system in its infancy before it branches out in customizability.

The problem is, there are already quite a lot of books out, if you're using them. I don't think, aside from some feats, the classes will get too much more for the ones that exist. Martial and arcane power are already out. Divine still needs to come, true, but most of the other books will focus on new classes. I made a wizard using arcane power, and with things like tome of readiness, they are at least at a level now where I will play one. (before that, they had none of the wizard flavor at all).

Tam_OConnor
2009-05-26, 09:51 AM
chiasaur11: The 3.5/Millennium Falcon :: Serenity system/Serenity paradigm thingy:

No, it actually looks really smooth and shiny-like. Then you get closer, and everyone dies. It took us quite a few sessions to figure out how incredibly lethal it can be (especially when grenades are involved).

mikej
2009-05-26, 10:01 AM
I'am truly astonished this thread hasn't regress into a flame war.

I've spent far too much time and money on 3.5, also my group has barely even used all the books we bought. I also dislike the whole, " one step foward, two steps back". kind of feel I get from 4th edition

KIDS
2009-05-26, 10:40 AM
Strangely enough, I've converted at least 20 characters to 4E over time and I've never had any problems with continuity (ok I'll give you one - Time Stop/Divine Metamagic). Now they all feel more like a) having appropriate abilities that distinguish them from other characters b) easier to play with less details to track c) not having their personalities railroaded by the alignment system. And miniatures aren't necessary for play, a simple excel grid with coins worked just fine for all of my groups.

Doug Lampert
2009-05-26, 11:09 AM
You can sell items for 1/5 their value. Wonderful. Even if you craft your own? Apparently. For no other reason than you are a PC. I train in all the social skills, and make magic items. But no one buys... because I'm a PC. Makes no sense.
Of course the ammusing thing is that 3.5 has the EXACT SAME inability to make noney making items because you are a PC.

PCs sell for 1/2 price, always, take Profession Merchant, sell for half price but you get 1/2 of 1d20+skill bonus per week in extra GP from being a merchant. Take 23 ranks in Diplomacy, sell for half price.

3.5 you have all these lovely skills for dealing with people, and you still sell for a flat price of less than the cost to make!


Let's play it your way, though. Let's take my aforementioned +3 Short Sword. Let's say there are more adventurers than what I presumed. How many adventurers would want to use a +3 Short Sword? Well, also according to 4e's rules, you can't buy any magical item above your level.

Where did you get that totally bizare piece of missinformation? You can't MAKE items above your level, you can make the items at or below your level, and making is cheaper than buying so the ONLY items you'll buy are of higher level.

tcrudisi
2009-05-26, 12:06 PM
Where did you get that totally bizare piece of missinformation? You can't MAKE items above your level, you can make the items at or below your level, and making is cheaper than buying so the ONLY items you'll buy are of higher level.

Did I screw that one up? I also added in the forewarning that I was away from my books. When I get to them later tonight, I'll take a look and see just how badly I screwed it up, then. I do know you cannot make items above your level, but I thought they discouraged being able to purchase items above your level too. Hm.. I guess I'll learn tonight :)

Also, I was fairly sure that it said the cost to make an item was the same price as purchasing it, though someone already corrected that, above, with something about a mark-up of sorts.

EarFall
2009-05-26, 12:08 PM
Of course the ammusing thing is that 3.5 has the EXACT SAME inability to make noney making items because you are a PC.

PCs sell for 1/2 price, always, take Profession Merchant, sell for half price but you get 1/2 of 1d20+skill bonus per week in extra GP from being a merchant. Take 23 ranks in Diplomacy, sell for half price.

3.5 you have all these lovely skills for dealing with people, and you still sell for a flat price of less than the cost to make!



Where did you get that totally bizare piece of missinformation? You can't MAKE items above your level, you can make the items at or below your level, and making is cheaper than buying so the ONLY items you'll buy are of higher level.

I grant you that 3.5 had the same mechanic, but it was easily ignored because balance wasn't a sacred cow. This same DM allowed a merchant to make money as a PC with a magic shop on the side in 3.5 In 4e he claims it would ruin the balance, which would ruin 4e (so he says). My problem is that the system instills "values" on things like balance that don't need to be there.

Doug Lampert
2009-05-26, 12:56 PM
I grant you that 3.5 had the same mechanic, but it was easily ignored because balance wasn't a sacred cow. This same DM allowed a merchant to make money as a PC with a magic shop on the side in 3.5 In 4e he claims it would ruin the balance, which would ruin 4e (so he says). My problem is that the system instills "values" on things like balance that don't need to be there.So your problem with 4e is with the GM not making a house ruling he made in 3rd.

And the GM is obviously being insane if he claims WBL gear is more important in 4th ed than in 3rd. Because fourth edition HAS no wealth by level guidelines and puts FAR FAR less emphasis on needing to keep gear at a close to level appropriate amount than the 3.5 rules did.

Cash is useful in both 3rd ed and 4th ed, but extra cash matters FAR LESS in 4th ed since costs are exponential rather than quadratic so you don't need to worry about someone getting too far ahead of the curve and there are fewer slots and limits on item dailies and you can't spend a bit extra and get extra powers added to an existing item.

I allowed sell back for extra in 3.5 and in 4.0, and it is VASTLY less likely to unballance 4.0. Seriously.

EarFall
2009-05-26, 01:01 PM
So your problem with 4e is with the GM not making a house ruling he made in 3rd.

And the GM is obviously being insane if he claims WBL gear is more important in 4th ed than in 3rd. Because fourth edition HAS no wealth by level guidelines and puts FAR FAR less emphasis on needing to keep gear at a close to level appropriate amount than the 3.5 rules did.

Cash is useful in both 3rd ed and 4th ed, but extra cash matters FAR LESS in 4th ed since costs are exponential rather than quadratic so you don't need to worry about someone getting too far ahead of the curve and there are fewer slots and limits on item dailies and you can't spend a bit extra and get extra powers added to an existing item.

I allowed sell back for extra in 3.5 and in 4.0, and it is VASTLY less likely to unballance 4.0. Seriously.

And I know everything you said is completely true. But the game designers decided to emphasize how important balance is in 4e. It's still my DM's fault, I acknowledge that, but I believe they took the "cinematics and balance: a bit too far in 4e, so that most of the people I play with just kinda groan and try to have fun when we play 4e, whereas when we play 3.5 everyone turns back on the "think critically" aspect of their brains. Not necessarily a fault of 4e mechanic, more a fault of their marketing methods and flavor they put as "rules" where it didn't belong.

ghost_warlock
2009-05-26, 01:20 PM
making is cheaper than buying.

No.


The ritualís component cost is equal to the price of the magic item you create.

The cost to craft is exactly the same as the price to buy.

Well, technically, since you have to purchase the ritual book to learn the ritual (175gp), buying is actually cheaper than crafting. :smalltongue:

Volkov
2009-05-26, 01:28 PM
So your problem with 4e is with the GM not making a house ruling he made in 3rd.

And the GM is obviously being insane if he claims WBL gear is more important in 4th ed than in 3rd. Because fourth edition HAS no wealth by level guidelines and puts FAR FAR less emphasis on needing to keep gear at a close to level appropriate amount than the 3.5 rules did.

Cash is useful in both 3rd ed and 4th ed, but extra cash matters FAR LESS in 4th ed since costs are exponential rather than quadratic so you don't need to worry about someone getting too far ahead of the curve and there are fewer slots and limits on item dailies and you can't spend a bit extra and get extra powers added to an existing item.

I allowed sell back for extra in 3.5 and in 4.0, and it is VASTLY less likely to unballance 4.0. Seriously.
I ask you, try to convince me to convert to 4.0, when I've already spent 6,000 dollars and 7 years on 3.x.

tcrudisi
2009-05-26, 01:33 PM
And the GM is obviously being insane if he claims WBL gear is more important in 4th ed than in 3rd. Because fourth edition HAS no wealth by level guidelines and puts FAR FAR less emphasis on needing to keep gear at a close to level appropriate amount than the 3.5 rules did.

I just wanted to make a quick addendum to this. While there is not a WBL chart per se, there are both the treasure parcels per level and the starting equipment guide for starting above level 1. When I am running a game, I try to follow the treasure parcels as closely as possible and it does result in the players ending up around where the starting equipment chart suggests the players should be at.


The cost to craft is exactly the same as the price to buy.

Well, technicially, since you have to purchase the ritual book to learn the ritual (175gp), buying is actually cheaper than crafting.

Thanks, I thought that was true.


I allowed sell back for extra in 3.5 and in 4.0, and it is VASTLY less likely to unbalance 4.0. Seriously.

QFT.

Volkov
2009-05-26, 01:45 PM
Come on I'm waiting. Give me enough reason to change to 4thE when I've spent $6,000 on 3.x and 7 years of my life. Give me your best shot!

V'icternus
2009-05-26, 01:45 PM
I think that's the main problem. People spent too much money on 3.x.

*Sigh* If only you were like me, and never payed for anything...

I just find that 4e is less about the mechanics, and more about the fun. (Unless the players/DM make it about the mechanics...)

With 3.x, the disbalance means that at some point, most players stop having fun, and the massive ammount of calculations required put off most players who just want to have fun, not number-crunch.

Of course, D&D means there will be some number-crunching. But if you number-crunch your way to an Epic Level pure Fighter, only to see someone else pull some numbers off the net and make a super-wizard (not to mention Pun-pun...), it's just not fun. 4e has the balance required to make anything playable, which means, you can play anything.

Of course, it's still possilbe to optimise, but in the end, it's a minimal advantage. The only real way to get an advantage over other players is to play better. And this means that skill and imagination are being rewarded, instead of "who can break the game" or "who can look up the best game-breaker".

Now, before anyone kills me, I love 3.5. (Asside from the minor setback of my current character being, uh... dead.) There are some fun options, and too many choices to count. But, if you didn't invest in it, and especially if you're new to the game, 4e seems to be the best option. (If you've bought more than seven 3.5 books, though, stick with that, because that's a lot of money)

As for miniatures, they're not neccesary in any of the games. (All can be replaced with a simple grid-map and some representations of things. "This is my Dwarven Fighter!" "He looks like an eraser..." " -.- Shut up.") However, I find it easier, more visually appealing and more fun to be able to see a slightly more accurate representation of what's going on. I don't want to know "You can move X feet, and he's X+2 feet away, but your weapon reach is Y, and Y = 3, so you can hit him" when I can hear "He's 7 squares away. You have a speed of 6. Move six and attack him, because he's in the square to you."

Basically, I like simplicity in my D&D because it's a game. I don't want to paly a game that involves 20+ books and requires 1 1/2 hours to start. I'd rather just go somewhere, hang with my friends, and roll some dice while pretending to smack some Goblins around.

Anyway, final analysis: 3.5 = Good if you've played it, and good to stick with if you've spent enough. 4e = Streamlined, easier, more fun for all players (on average)

And, in answer to the original question: People on this forum generally play 3.5, because that's what OotS makes fun of is about. It doesn't have much immediate appeal to someone only familiar with 4e's rules, and most 3.5 players never made the switch, because of the expense involved in playing 3.5, and the added expence switching would bring.

*Breathes* Alright, carry on, people...

shadzar
2009-05-26, 01:52 PM
Come on I'm waiting. Give me enough reason to change to 4thE when I've spent $6,000 on 3.x and 7 years of my life. Give me your best shot!

Calm down there young buck. Some of us have spent more over the 20+ years (:smalleek: 30 years now!) with AD&D. :smallwink:

WotC doesn't know their rear-end form a hole in the ground when it comes to things like this and only see tomorrow's profit margin. You never have to follow the company idea of what to buy or play, nor anyone that agrees with said company.

Once you own something you can enjoy it for as long as it lasts in your possession.

:smile:

chiasaur11
2009-05-26, 01:56 PM
Come on I'm waiting. Give me enough reason to change to 4thE when I've spent $6,000 on 3.x and 7 years of my life. Give me your best shot!

Snipers just outside your windows.

Red Team Snipers.

Ain't your life worth more than 6000 dollars?

Dark_Scary
2009-05-26, 02:04 PM
I try to follow the treasure parcels as closely as possible and it does result in the players ending up around where the starting equipment chart suggests the players should be at.

Not really, the starting equipment for higher level is far far less then the treasure parcels ends up giving.

tcrudisi
2009-05-26, 02:10 PM
Not really, the starting equipment for higher level is far far less then the treasure parcels ends up giving.

That is true. And if you end up just getting a laundry list (I love that expression) from the players that says, "I want these magical items" and then you give those items to the players ... you are definitely correct.

If you randomize it a bit, so they have to sell and make their own, for instance, it does end up a lot more even. Plus, when you get to choose your own, there's a lot more flexibility and power versus what the DM decides to hand out. So I find that it basically evens out.

Thanatos 51-50
2009-05-26, 02:58 PM
Not really, the starting equipment for higher level is far far less then the treasure parcels ends up giving.

You know, in my "face" 4E game, I have never once pulled a magic rapier or spiked chain or anything likewise out of the loot pile, it all seems rather completely randomised well beforehand.
The only time my Rogue has found rogue-focused loot has been when pulling it off the corpses of the Rogue's guild (Now destroyed in the 'Starting City'. Twice.) We've had to make due with buying and selling (At 1/2 price, mostly due to the glories of stimulating the black market economy, curtoesy of the same Rogue's Guild we've destroyed.)

Dark_Scary
2009-05-26, 03:21 PM
That is true. And if you end up just getting a laundry list (I love that expression) from the players that says, "I want these magical items" and then you give those items to the players ... you are definitely correct.

If you randomize it a bit, so they have to sell and make their own, for instance, it does end up a lot more even. Plus, when you get to choose your own, there's a lot more flexibility and power versus what the DM decides to hand out. So I find that it basically evens out.

Which doesn't matter at all because one of those people with free Rituals is going to get the only two rituals worth using, IE tear stuff apart and put it back together. And this means you lose practically negligible amounts even if your DM never gives you anything you want, and you still get exactly what you want.

You should never sell a single item ever in 4e, because of how incredibly terrible the pricing system is.

shadzar
2009-05-26, 03:31 PM
Which doesn't matter at all because one of those people with free Rituals is going to get the only two rituals worth using, IE tear stuff apart and put it back together. And this means you lose practically negligible amounts even if your DM never gives you anything you want, and you still get exactly what you want.

You should never sell a single item ever in 4e, because of how incredibly terrible the pricing system is.

You disenchant an item and only get the same amount worth back out of it as if you sold it. 20%

So you ain't getting any use out of disenchanting stuff.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-26, 03:42 PM
You disenchant an item and only get the same amount worth back out of it as if you sold it. 20%

So you ain't getting any use out of disenchanting stuff.
Important distinction: Gold & Residuum have different use values.

Residuum can be used for any type of Ritual and so is inherently useful (100% value) for any Ritualists you deal with. It is also useful for your own Ritualists.

Gold cannot be used as Ritual materials, but can be used to buy said materials (typically single-type, rather than universal) when they are available. Gold is also universally accepted, so it can be used with any merchant.

So, if you need to hire architects, you'll want gold. If you want to use Rituals, you'll want Residuum. Save for unrealistically efficient markets, there are important differences when it comes to selling or disenchanting magic items.

shadzar
2009-05-26, 03:58 PM
Important distinction: Gold & Residuum have different use values.

Residuum can be used for any type of Ritual and so is inherently useful (100% value) for any Ritualists you deal with. It is also useful for your own Ritualists.

Gold cannot be used as Ritual materials, but can be used to buy said materials (typically single-type, rather than universal) when they are available. Gold is also universally accepted, so it can be used with any merchant.

So, if you need to hire architects, you'll want gold. If you want to use Rituals, you'll want Residuum. Save for unrealistically efficient markets, there are important differences when it comes to selling or disenchanting magic items.

But residuum is the same as money and you can exchange gold for it. So you can go to a moneychanger and probably get close to the same amount of residuum less a transaction fee for however much gold you have.

Or just invade the Feywild and steal residuum on a quest.

So disenchant is still only likely to be useful for those that didn't plan ahead, and as 4th wants people to do, no resource management; so no need to ever plan ahead right? :smallconfused:

NecroRebel
2009-05-26, 04:03 PM
But residuum is the same as money and you can exchange gold for it. So you can go to a moneychanger and probably get close to the same amount of residuum less a transaction fee for however much gold you have.

Or just invade the Feywild and steal residuum on a quest.

So disenchant is still only likely to be useful for those that didn't plan ahead, and as 4th wants people to do, no resource management; so no need to ever plan ahead right? :smallconfused:

You can't buy residuum, though, at least not under normal circumstances. It says so, right in the same paragraph of the PHB where it first mentions residuum, to my memory.

If you're questing for residuum, you're, you know, questing. That should be a level-appropriate adventure, for which the residuum you're stealing will be part of the loot for.

Really, you're grasping at straws here, and failing to get ahold of any.

shadzar
2009-05-26, 04:18 PM
You can't buy residuum, though, at least not under normal circumstances. It says so, right in the same paragraph of the PHB where it first mentions residuum, to my memory.

If you're questing for residuum, you're, you know, questing. That should be a level-appropriate adventure, for which the residuum you're stealing will be part of the loot for.

Really, you're grasping at straws here, and failing to get ahold of any.

Check the sidebar about residuum where ever that is about small metal vials of it being used for currency.

Ravens_cry
2009-05-26, 04:31 PM
I don't play DnD 4e because. . .my group doesn't play it. I have played it, in fact it was the first PnPRPG I ever played, but our group plays Pathfinder. Hopefully in a few months we will start a World of Darkness campaign, and that should be. . .interesting.

NecroRebel
2009-05-26, 04:35 PM
Check the sidebar about residuum where ever that is about small metal vials of it being used for currency.

It's on page 225 of the Player's Handbook. It also specifies exotic locales and its use for large sums of wealth. Note that it does not contradict the bit on page 300, where it specifically says "You can't usually buy [residuum] on the open market." This means that you might be able to use residuum as currency in Sigil, or the City of Brass, but only for high-paragon or epic-tier items, and even then most people would probably prefer Astral Diamonds or platinum, as they're, you know, actual money rather than a trade good.

Again, you're grasping at straws.

Volkov
2009-05-26, 04:47 PM
Calm down there young buck. Some of us have spent more over the 20+ years (:smalleek: 30 years now!) with AD&D. :smallwink:

WotC doesn't know their rear-end form a hole in the ground when it comes to things like this and only see tomorrow's profit margin. You never have to follow the company idea of what to buy or play, nor anyone that agrees with said company.

Once you own something you can enjoy it for as long as it lasts in your possession.

:smile:

Sounds like EA. Although EA doesn't touch my favorite video game series of spore and C&C. Although they..... sees one thousand pit fiends standing outside, ready to kill him if he says bad things about EA are absolutely perfect and couldn't be better!

shadzar
2009-05-26, 04:49 PM
It's on page 225 of the Player's Handbook. It also specifies exotic locales and its use for large sums of wealth. Note that it does not contradict the bit on page 300, where it specifically says "You can't usually buy [residuum] on the open market." This means that you might be able to use residuum as currency in Sigil, or the City of Brass, but only for high-paragon or epic-tier items, and even then most people would probably prefer Astral Diamonds or platinum, as they're, you know, actual money rather than a trade good.

Again, you're grasping at straws.

-Heat oven to 450 degrees.
-Place your 4th edition books in for 1.5 hours or until golden brown.

Stop eating this crap RAW.

It has a direct relationship to GP equivalents. Any DM that forces you to play 4th to begin with, likewise any DM running 4th that doesn't allow any access to residuum until you have magic items to disenchant to prevent form using any rituals is an arse.

It is pretty counter-productive to have a system in place to replace non-combat spells, and allow any class to use this system, but relegate it to a level 8 party that have excess magic items to turn into spell ritual components.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-26, 04:58 PM
It has a direct relationship to GP equivalents. Any DM that forces you to play 4th to begin with, likewise any DM running 4th that doesn't allow any access to residuum until you have magic items to disenchant to prevent form using any rituals is an arse.

It is pretty counter-productive to have a system in place to replace non-combat spells, and allow any class to use this system, but relegate it to a level 8 party that have excess magic items to turn into spell ritual components.
You are aware of the difference between Residuum and Reagents?

Reagents are mundane materials that can be used in certain types of Rituals. There are Arcane Reagents, Divine Reagents and Natural Reagents - one for each class of Ritual. These can be created by difficult, but mundane, means.

Residuum is a silvery liquid found only in exotic locales (e.g. Feywild) or from the disenchantment of magical items. It can be used in any Ritual.

Still, five stars for vitriol :smalltongue:

NecroRebel
2009-05-26, 05:03 PM
-Heat oven to 450 degrees.
-Place your 4th edition books in for 1.5 hours or until golden brown.

Stop eating this crap RAW.

It has a direct relationship to GP equivalents. Any DM that forces you to play 4th to begin with, likewise any DM running 4th that doesn't allow any access to residuum until you have magic items to disenchant to prevent form using any rituals is an arse.

It is pretty counter-productive to have a system in place to replace non-combat spells, and allow any class to use this system, but relegate it to a level 8 party that have excess magic items to turn into spell ritual components.

...If you don't like 4E, why the hell are you in a 4E thread?

Second, everything has a "direct relationship to GP equivalents." There's no difference between saying residuum has such a relationship and saying that backpacks have such a relationship, or rope, or anything else. Except that you can buy backpacks or rope at most stores, which you can't with residuum.

Further, maybe you didn't notice, but you can use rituals without residuum. You just need the (fairly general) components, that are avaialable in most markets; residuum's only advantage is that it can be used for any ritual, not just those that fall under one skill type.

Once more and for the last time, you're grasping at straws. Your "objections" are not well thought out, you ignore specific counterexamples just because they're counterexamples, and you seem to be posting just to be obnoxious. Regardless, I'm done with you.

Doug Lampert
2009-05-26, 05:11 PM
No.



The cost to craft is exactly the same as the price to buy.

Well, technically, since you have to purchase the ritual book to learn the ritual (175gp), buying is actually cheaper than crafting. :smalltongue:Incorrect. The cost to make is the base cost. Purchase from a merchant is 10%-40% higher.

shadzar
2009-05-26, 05:13 PM
Residuum is a silvery liquid

No, just ask Lyra Valaqua and she will tell you it is not a liquid but is DUST! :smalleek:

@NecroRebel:

Do the 4th edition books dress you in the morning?

You don't have to use exotic locales only for places that use residuum. You can re-introduce electrum pieces into 4th if you so desire.

Residuum can be used for currency and many threads on many forums over this past year, including on by Mike Mearls has explained in part how to use it as such.

Either way you only get 30% value for a magic item when selling or by disenchanting said item by RAW. :smallwink:

Feel free to work out the effective level you need to be to afford said reagents vs residuum and what levels you would have to be to use the straight RAW "core" version of residuum based rituals.

You will find rituals take a while to be able to get to unless you have Ye Olde Magick Item Shoppe waiting for you to buy residuum for 500% its GP value in useless +1 daggers.

Doug Lampert
2009-05-26, 05:16 PM
You know, in my "face" 4E game, I have never once pulled a magic rapier or spiked chain or anything likewise out of the loot pile, it all seems rather completely randomised well beforehand.

Then your DM is doing it wrong. There is no random treasure table in 4th ed. (None.) Because you are supposed to make sure characters find things that are useful.

By the time you sell or disenchant the gear you presumably have something one bonus better, which means FIVE TIMES as expensive, so selling at 100% is STILL CRAP in terms of having enough money to buy or make anything better than what you find. 20%, 100%, no real difference in game, and 20% is far more realistic in a setting where magic items move slowly and require expensive security since the possible customers are people who fight like a small army and are accustomed to getting stuff they want off the dead bodies of the former owners.

Starscream
2009-05-26, 05:27 PM
...If you don't like 4E, why the hell are you in a 4E thread?

Um, because this is a thread about why many of us don't like 4E?:smallconfused:

Nightson
2009-05-26, 05:28 PM
Well, giving random loot is fine after transfer enchantment comes around.

Mando Knight
2009-05-26, 06:05 PM
Dungeons and Dragons 4th ed is challenging only to those with a lack of Imagination, its like using a complicated coding system for years and then going back to playing with toy-blocks so you can make towers to topple over...:smallsigh:

...I'll take that as a complement (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitlejlrsj8bkviwx?).

Kylarra
2009-05-26, 06:41 PM
Incorrect. The cost to make is the base cost. Purchase from a merchant is 10%-40% higher.Mind citing references?

PHP 223 - Magic Items

In terms of the economic transaction, creating an item is the same as buying it: You spend money equal to the market price of the item and acquire the item.

PHB 304 - Enchant Item Ritual

You touch a normal item and turn it into a magic item of your level or lower. The ritualís component cost is equal to the price of the magic item you create.

Berserk Monk
2009-05-26, 06:45 PM
Fourth edition's silly. They got rid of gnomes and half-orcs, my two favorite races.:smallfrown:

Kylarra
2009-05-26, 06:48 PM
Fourth edition's silly. They got rid of gnomes and half-orcs, my two favorite races.:smallfrown:Psst. They're both in PHB2. :smalltongue:

Guancyto
2009-05-26, 06:55 PM
Even if Gary Gygax were to come back and say, "Edition 3.5 is much better than 4e. It's how D&D was supposed to be," then 4e lovers would ignore him and come up with their own reasons why 4e is better ... and vice-versa.

I strongly suspect those reasons would start (and possibly end) with, "and why exactly should we take your word as gospel?"

It's easy to do, but take care not to confuse "not being very persuasive" with "other guy is being closed-minded." If you were to assert that 4e kicks puppies and causes world hunger, a 4e lover would ignore it on the basis of such an assertion being silly.

Ravens_cry
2009-05-26, 07:06 PM
I strongly suspect those reasons would start (and possibly end) with, "and why exactly should we take your word as gospel?"

It's easy to do, but take care not to confuse "not being very persuasive" with "other guy is being closed-minded." If you were to assert that 4e kicks puppies and causes world hunger, a 4e lover would ignore it on the basis of such an assertion being silly.
Heck, I would ignore it as silly, and I prefer 3.75 (AKA. Pathfinder).

Knaight
2009-05-26, 07:18 PM
I agree. Just because Gygax essentially created RPGs doesn't mean that his tastes are objectively best. I personally dislike D&D 1e and 2e, consider 3e acceptable, and dislike 4e. I also like a lot of non D&D systems, preferring simple systems that have actually been built up from the ground as intended. My problem with 4e isn't that it is simple, or even that it it simplified, its that it was simplified poorly, and not from the greatest base either. If Gygax were to rise from the dead and claim any edition of D&D, or any other system that I didn't think was best was best, I would play it if I hadn't before, and after playing make my own judgment.

Colmarr
2009-05-26, 07:19 PM
I'am truly astonished this thread hasn't regress into a flame war.

I like to think that it's because the majority of 4e gamers on GitP have developed a pretty thick skin by now, and know better than to get into those sort of discussions.

shadzar
2009-05-26, 07:19 PM
Just a note Gary didn't like 3rd or 4th; and only barely tolerated AD&D2e since it was stolen from him.

Knaight
2009-05-26, 07:29 PM
Yeah, if he was to say whether 3.5 or 4e was better it would be more a matter of less awful than more good, not that that necessarily makes sense.

shadzar
2009-05-26, 07:53 PM
Yeah, if he was to say whether 3.5 or 4e was better it would be more a matter of less awful than more good, not that that necessarily makes sense.

It does if you said maybe he was picking "the lesser of the two evils". :smallwink:

EarFall
2009-05-26, 07:56 PM
Gary Gygax didn't like 4e? I didn't know - I can't cast speak with dead.

Starbuck_II
2009-05-26, 08:20 PM
Mind citing references?


He might be referring to page 224 PHB 4th edition book.


Prices shown are the base market price for the items. The actual cost to purchase a magic item depends on supply and demand and might be 10 to 40
percent more than the base market price.


Usually 10%-40% more to buy based on supply/demand. So if +1 swords are really common, they will only cost 10% more.

Kylarra
2009-05-26, 08:26 PM
So it's a classic example of variables being cited as set in stone, I see.

You'll notice that it says might be 10-40% more. That doesn't mean that it will or should always have a markup price. In your example, common weapons would have no markup pricing. If they cost more it's because of scarcity, not because you're arbitrarily adding tax.

EarFall
2009-05-26, 08:40 PM
So it's a classic example of variables being cited as set in stone, I see.

You'll notice that it says might be 10-40% more. That doesn't mean that it will or should always have a markup price. In your example, common weapons would have no markup pricing. If they cost more it's because of scarcity, not because you're arbitrarily adding tax.

If they're selling them at cost, then that makes absolutely no sense. Why would anyone make things that you sell for the same price you make them?

Kroy
2009-05-26, 08:44 PM
@OP I just realized that you spell "D&D" wrong. I hate it when people do that. Just because "N" sounds like "and" doesn't mean that their interchangeable.

Kylarra
2009-05-26, 08:47 PM
If they're selling them at cost, then that makes absolutely no sense. Why would anyone make things that you sell for the same price you make them?Because it cost you only 20% of the price to buy them? :smallconfused:

EarFall
2009-05-26, 08:54 PM
*sighs* I'm talking about the people MAKING the item, not selling them. The wizards lost a HUGE reason to make things :profit. The WIZARDS lost a reason to make them. Not the merchants.

HP McLuvin
2009-05-26, 08:56 PM
Why don't I play 4E?
Because I have approximately $1500 worth of 3.5 books sitting on my bookshelf, many of which have only been glanced through...my wife would kill me if I suggested we invest even more money in a new edition.

shadzar
2009-05-26, 09:00 PM
*sighs* I'm talking about the people MAKING the item, not selling them. The wizards lost a HUGE reason to make things :profit. The WIZARDS lost a reason to make them. Not the merchants.

The merchants likely can't make them as they don't have sufficient levels or the proper rituals and time to make them.

Which kind of puts a who wrench in the 4th edition system that destroys the economy.

Who would be selling these things at such reduced prices to merchants if they are in such short supply due to the cost requirements?

It seems a mass-merchant-murder was about to happen to right the economy.

So since wizards have no reason to make items in their downtime, or even study or research to make new item, then where do they all come from for people to buy? :smalleek:

Not that there is anything really to spend money on anymore afterall since the only items to buy are weapons for adventuring. You can't even rent a room for the night and have to sleep in a ditch now, because there aren't even tents to buy and sleep in. :smallfurious:

Why become a wizard again and study the arcane if you are NOT an adventurer?

Nightson
2009-05-26, 09:14 PM
The enchant magic item ritual takes one hour. The wizard isn't churning out items in the hope that someone will buy one of them, he's waiting for someone to come and commission a magic item from him. I don't know why people always have the idea of a magic item shop just storing magic items like any other good, it wouldn't work that way, most magic items would get disenchanted down.

Sir Homeslice
2009-05-26, 09:16 PM
Not that there is anything really to spend money on anymore afterall since the only items to buy are weapons for adventuring. You can't even rent a room for the night and have to sleep in a ditch now, because there aren't even tents to buy and sleep in. :smallfurious:

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/7398/tent.png

Don't mind me. Just taking screenshots from my PDF of the PHB.

Whle I'm at it:
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/2543/fooddrinkandlodging.png

Kylarra
2009-05-26, 09:16 PM
*sighs* I'm talking about the people MAKING the item, not selling them. The wizards lost a HUGE reason to make things :profit. The WIZARDS lost a reason to make them. Not the merchants.99.99% of the time you're not hiring a wizard to make you a magic item. So 99.99% of the time it doesn't matter why they made the magic item. As a wizard (or other ritual caster), it costs you money in order to have the convenience of getting whatever item you want. The materials needed to craft your item? Are largely created by either disenchanting (20% item value minus 25g and the initial investment of 360g for the convenience) or sellback (20% again).

You could argue that a wizard might charge you the 10-40% for the sake of spending his 1hr making you the item sure, but the merchant? Odds are you're better knifing them in the dark rather than letting them gouge you again on an already losing proposition (you're paying 10-40% more for an item they paid 20% for... hey it sounds like college bookstores all over again :smallmad:).

EarFall
2009-05-26, 09:21 PM
Which is because college bookstores exist in a vacuum, or at least they did before Amazon. For the magic item prices to work, the whole world needs to exist in a vacuum. And WotC KNOWS how economics work, their marketing department proves it, so how they allowed this travesty of fallacy to exist, in BOTH editions they made (Calling 3.X one edition for simplicity) I have no idea.

NullAshton
2009-05-26, 09:40 PM
Actually if you think about it, the selling magic items for 20% of it's normal cost kinda makes sense.

Consider for a moment the price of magic items, and relative rarity of them I'd assume due to supply and demand. Also consider the fact that the only person interested in expensive magic items would probably be the select few adventurers there are, who will buy these items.

Usually not just any magic item will do, just a specific one will do. Suppliers will probably have a lot of magic items just laying around in store, not being sold. Thus to make money, I'd assume they'd have to buy items for such a low price.

Wizards simply can make items at any time, so they probably only make items when someone needs a specific one, for the full price plus a little extra for the trouble.

EarFall
2009-05-26, 09:55 PM
Actually if you think about it, the selling magic items for 20% of it's normal cost kinda makes sense.

Consider for a moment the price of magic items, and relative rarity of them I'd assume due to supply and demand. Also consider the fact that the only person interested in expensive magic items would probably be the select few adventurers there are, who will buy these items.

Usually not just any magic item will do, just a specific one will do. Suppliers will probably have a lot of magic items just laying around in store, not being sold. Thus to make money, I'd assume they'd have to buy items for such a low price.

Wizards simply can make items at any time, so they probably only make items when someone needs a specific one, for the full price plus a little extra for the trouble.

They're a rare item that you assume merchants have lying around?

shadzar
2009-05-26, 09:56 PM
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/7398/tent.png

Don't mind me. Just taking screenshots from my PDF of the PHB.


:smallredface: Guess I missed that like they missed giving a price for a flask of oil. :smallwink:

Thajocoth
2009-05-26, 10:05 PM
:smallredface: Guess I missed that like they missed giving a price for a flask of oil. :smallwink:

The price of flask oil is in the Errata... Which I can't for the HP of me find anymore...

shadzar
2009-05-26, 10:22 PM
The price of flask oil is in the Errata... Which I can't for the HP of me find anymore...

Same as 3.5 for price and weight.

Yahzi
2009-05-26, 11:12 PM
For all its faults, 4e is one of the better tactical wargames on the market. Still, I prefer a system that at least attempts to explain itself and make "real-world" sense, at least for my roleplaying. I've played 4e, enjoyed it very much, and would welcome the opportunity to play it again. It's a better tactical wargame than 3e ever was. But it's less of an RPG, so I don't expect to ever fully leave 3e.
Exactly the reason I haven't even tried 4e.

Heck, to be honest, I'm still playing 3e. :smallbiggrin:

Check out my sig to see how I made real-world sense out of 3e.


You can't buy residuum, though, at least not under normal circumstances.
But you can buy magic items... and you can buy spell casting services... so... um... :smalleek:

RTGoodman
2009-05-26, 11:39 PM
The price of flask oil is in the Errata... Which I can't for the HP of me find anymore...

It's probably 'cause Wizards decided to stop calling their Errata "Errata," and now the proper word is "Updates." You can find all of the 4E "Updates" HERE (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/updates). :smallwink:

Serpentine
2009-05-26, 11:58 PM
4e doesn't inspire me *shrug*
But, of course, that's an incredibly... loaded question? Is that the term I'm looking for? Like "When was the last time you kicked a puppy?"
Your first question should be something more like, "Does anyone play D&D 4e on this site?" The answer would be, of course, "yes", rendering the title of this thread nonsensical.
I haven't played a game of 4e, but I did create a character and it just wasn't as much fun or as inspiring as 3.5. There are mechanics I'd like to filch from the new edition - I've already used the Minion thingy - but it's just not worth bothering to change over completely. An awful lot of what I - I - most like about 3.5 seems to have been removed, changed for the worse, or is exactly the same in 4e.
That's why I don't play it. Many other people do, and I understand why they enjoy it, even prefer it.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-27, 12:08 AM
But you can buy magic items... and you can buy spell casting services... so... um... :smalleek:
Mainly it is because Residuum is so useful and disenchanting Magic Items is rare. As has been correctly pointed out, 4E does not assume a Magic Mart based economy; Magic Items can be made on demand (1 hour) by any Ritualist of the appropriate level. There is no reason to keep them in a stockroom (where they become a target for high-level thieves) and no particular reason for PCs to expect to find Magic Marts at every village across the world.

As for why there are non-adventuring Wizards: the same reason there are non-adventuring Clerics - it gives the NPC access to Ritual Magic (which is useful in non-adventuring contexts too) and some very useful utilities. In a campaign I am running, all merchant guilds train and employ Guild Mages - not as warriors, but as specialists. A Guild Mage can enchant items for wealthy buyers, activate TP Circles for rapid trade, effect an instant communication network via Sending and so on.

Also: thanks to abundant non-combat sources of XP it is easier to figure out how all these high-level Classed NPCs came about.

monty
2009-05-27, 12:11 AM
Also: thanks to abundant non-combat sources of XP it is easier to figure out how all these high-level Classed NPCs came about.

Wait...you mean you don't give XP for noncombat stuff in 3.5? I must be doing it wrong.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-27, 12:17 AM
Wait...you mean you don't give XP for noncombat stuff in 3.5? I must be doing it wrong.
No no - it's just poorly codified in 3.5.

The "variant rule" of Story Awards provides a Skill Challenge-like description of granting non-combat XP, but it states in no uncertain terms that these things should be rare:

As a rule, you probably don't want to hand out a lot of experience for these types of encounters unless you intentionally want to run a low-combat game

The 4E Skill Challenge, on the other hand, is supposed to be a regular part of adventuring; and as such, it is more detailed and better integrated into the rules structure as a whole.

I know people grant non-combat XP in 3E (hell, they've been doing it for as long as I can remember) but up to 4E it had always been seen as an ad hoc way of boosting your party's XP total for an adventure. I'm sure some folks had very detailed ways that they granted non-combat XP in 3E but they basically had to write 'em up from scratch.

monty
2009-05-27, 12:26 AM
I'm sure some folks had very detailed ways that they granted non-combat XP in 3E but they basically had to write 'em up from scratch.

Oh yes, my painfully complex system of "whatever the hell I feel like giving them."

I find that some of the rules are easier if you make them up as you go along.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-27, 12:39 AM
Oh yes, my painfully complex system of "whatever the hell I feel like giving them."

I find that some of the rules are easier if you make them up as you go along.
To be pedantic, that's not a rule - or even a standard :smalltongue:

All you're saying is that you used DM Fiat to award ad hoc XP; this is fine for the adventurers, but in relation to the text you quoted, it does little to explain how high-leveled non-combat NPCs came into existence. My contention is that Classed NPCs now have a reason to have progressed in their class without killing any kobolds.

To be honest, it was a minor point; but what the heck, I seem to have plenty of time to argue about minutiae :smallbiggrin:

Juggernaut1981
2009-05-27, 12:46 AM
Why I don't play 4E...
1. Wizards of the Cheese seem to set up everything they do to fleece the playerbase... 4E, Magic: the Fleecing, etc, etc, etc. I'm tired of feeling like a cash-cow for a system that is just as half assed as other systems.

2. As someone said above, 4E is all about table-battle-tactics. This is otherwise called D&D Minis... if I wanted to play that game, I'd have forked out the hundreds of dollars to get boxes of random figurines that would mostly gather dust...

3. 4E seems to be focussed on combat and also about "removing weakness". I don't like the fact that the game seems to have removed weaknesses, characters have "different comparative strengths" but no weaknesses. It doesn't feel like a story of heroes conquering their weaknesses and the world around them... it feels like Advanced Dungeon Crawl to me. It is that aspect that feels most like WoW...


Story Awards
Story awards are easy to codify and easy to administer...
Step 1: Award value = 1 encounter's worth of XP based on Average Party EL
Step 2: When to award it: You sit down and figure out what milestone/elements they have to get to for them to deserve it. E.g. To get this reward the PCs must a) Find a murderer and b) Bring them to the relevant authority alive. Did they find the murderer and return them alive? *ding* 1 encounter of XP. Did they find the murderer but kill them? *ding* 1/2 encounter of XP (only half the job done). Did they not find the murderer and instead chased a squirrel with a ball around [insert video of homer simpson with the squirrel ball]? *ding* 0 encounter of XP.

VERY VERY EASY TO DO...

Doresain
2009-05-27, 12:55 AM
i dont play because they took away my precious legions of undead minions...how could they do such a thing!?:smallmad:

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-27, 12:59 AM
Story Awards
Story awards are easy to codify and easy to administer...
Step 1: Award value = 1 encounter's worth of XP based on Average Party EL
Step 2: When to award it: You sit down and figure out what milestone/elements they have to get to for them to deserve it. E.g. To get this reward the PCs must a) Find a murderer and b) Bring them to the relevant authority alive. Did they find the murderer and return them alive? *ding* 1 encounter of XP. Did they find the murderer but kill them? *ding* 1/2 encounter of XP (only half the job done). Did they not find the murderer and instead chased a squirrel with a ball around [insert video of homer simpson with the squirrel ball]? *ding* 0 encounter of XP.

VERY VERY EASY TO DO...
Yes, but there you are still dealing with XP assigned by the DM for completing certain tasks - and modified at a whim.

Skill Challenges are designed to be used in everyday situations - escaping guards in a crowded marketplace or negotiating with the king. Rather than deciding beforehand how much XP an Event Flag is worth, you figure out the Complexity of the task (1-5) and then adjudicate dice rolls against DMG 42 DCs. At the end, you give each party member XP based off of the "Encounter Budget" chart, modified by the Complexity (1 = equal EL, 2 = LV+1, etc.).

It is a system rather than an ad hoc ruling.

P.S. Yes, I know I've said ad hoc a lot, but I really am using it for a reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc).

Thurbane
2009-05-27, 01:13 AM
The reason I and my group don't (and won't) play 4E is as follows:
* Investment of dollars in 3.5 materials, many of which we have even yet to use
* Investment in time learning and mastering the 3.5 rule set - some of my group are extremely "part time", and wouldn't have the time or inclination to learn a new system
* From my (very limited) 4E experience, the game just doesn't capture the essence of the D&D game, and I really dislike the "feel" of the gameplay
* The changes to so much of the fluff from 3.X to 4E - changes which I don't much like, and for the most part find completely superfluous
* The inevitable rollout of 5E, for all of the the same reasons above

Josh the Aspie
2009-05-27, 01:33 AM
There are several reasons that I don't.

First: It is, by default, in the Forgotten Realms. I dislike this setting even more than I dislike Greyhawk.

Second: I dislike skill challenges.

Third: I am in roleplaying games for the roleplaying, and the two times I have tried playing it at the local RPGA game days, I was DISALLOWED from roleplaying by skill challenges, both times.

Fourth: I like 3rd ed, I have the books for it, I see no point in converting to a new system.

Fifth: I dislike the feel of the game as a whole, from the ground up. It's a war game, with roleplaying optionally attached, depending on the DM, not a roleplaying game where you can take the added thrill of crunch.

Sixth: nearly everything I've read in the system or the flavor that is different has rubbed me completely the wrong way.

Kaiyanwang
2009-05-27, 02:07 AM
Thurbane + Josh = my reasons.

Ah and er.. I feel it a little bit... dumb. Maybe it's the art (when it's not recycled from 3.5) maybe the monsters (even if in later 3.5 designer made a lot of dumb monsters because "gamers are too idiots to use a monsters with a long list of spell like abilities") maybe the forced balance leading to the whole album "Mellon Collie And The Infinite Sameness".

Seriously, 4th edition has A LOT of good ideas. Maybe this is why I always bash it so much, maybe. 3.5 Needed a rework, a big rework maybe, but the direction WOTC took it's no longer mine. Adieu, Wotc.

Innis Cabal
2009-05-27, 02:24 AM
There are several reasons that I don't.

First: It is, by default, in the Forgotten Realms. I dislike this setting even more than I dislike Greyhawk.



I don't play and I know this is incorrect....

Sir Homeslice
2009-05-27, 02:25 AM
First: It is, by default, in the Forgotten Realms. I dislike this setting even more than I dislike Greyhawk.

4e has it's own setting. The only thing Forgotten Realms related are the three books it has (Campaign Setting, Player's Guide, and some sort of adventure book). Greyhawk so far doesn't exist.


3. 4E seems to be focussed on combat and also about "removing weakness".
4e characters still have weaknesses.

Dziadek
2009-05-27, 02:29 AM
I don't play it because so far i played only 3.x versions and memorized their rules at a fairly high level. Starting to learn 4.0 now when I overall haven't played D&D for more than a few months would be pointless, especially when i'm just creating a campaign for my players, plus, 4.0 feels too futuristic and WoW-style to me while 3.x has that feeling of retro, which is vital in a Medieval setting.

The New Bruceski
2009-05-27, 02:29 AM
There are several reasons that I don't.

First: It is, by default, in the Forgotten Realms. I dislike this setting even more than I dislike Greyhawk.


It is? The default setting I see is "Points of Light" Genericville, so chosen because there's room to fit in anything the DM wants. Forgotten Realms got a reboot for 4e, but it's not the default setting of the system.

And that RP issue sounds odd. How did a skill challenge remove your roleplay opportunity?

Edit: ninja ahoy, captain!

Mordokai
2009-05-27, 02:58 AM
I don't play it because so far i played only 3.x versions and memorized their rules at a fairly high level. Starting to learn 4.0 now when I overall haven't played D&D for more than a few months would be pointless, especially when i'm just creating a campaign for my players, plus, 4.0 feels too futuristic and WoW-style to me while 3.x has that feeling of retro, which is vital in a Medieval setting.

Emphasis mine. Funny enough, some of my friends in our group seem to like the 4ed just because it's so much like WoW. Well, so far I've only heard one saying this, to be fair. But I dare say it there are more people like him out there.

Like I said couple of times before, I play 4ed because everybody in our group decided they like it more than 3.5. I like the group and finding a new one would take just too much time and effort. I'm not too old to learn new rules, so I'm going along with it. And I started playing dnd a good year or two before the change occured, so I really didn't loose that much by switching.

That said, I still dislike most of the 4ed. The power system is something I don't much care for. I've actually came to like Vancian casting system. Furthermore, the fluff is just something I can't relate to. Add the outright hideous looks of the books and you know why I don't like the fourth edition. There are some good point in favor of 4ed, but I just like 3.5 more.

One thing I like very much about 4ed however, is Character Builder. I wouldn't mind having similar application for 3.5.

Sebastian
2009-05-27, 03:29 AM
So your problem with 4e is with the GM not making a house ruling he made in 3rd.

And the GM is obviously being insane if he claims WBL gear is more important in 4th ed than in 3rd. Because fourth edition HAS no wealth by level guidelines and puts FAR FAR less emphasis on needing to keep gear at a close to level appropriate amount than the 3.5 rules did.

Are you kidding, right? Treasure parcels are even more strict than WBL , in 3.x if you kill a monster by the RAW you should find some appropriate treasure, in 4e you only find the parcels the GM put down for it, in 3.x PCs could (theorically) make a bit of money going around raiding orcs villages or something, in 4e you could kill a dragon and still find its hoard be empty, or if you find something there you will not find something else later because you already used your share of treasure parcels for that adventure.

And in 4e gold is power even more than in 3.x, if you want a magic item or use a ritual you need gold and very little else, at least in 3.x you still need XP and - more important - time, some of the more powerful magic items need almost literaly months, if not years, of work that make a little hard find a wizard willing to dedicate so much of his precious time to you just for some gold,

V'icternus
2009-05-27, 04:05 AM
That's a DM failure, not a system failure.

"Here, you get to choose what your PC's get as loot"

"Well, alright then. They killed a dragon, but because it doesn't say that dragons have massive hoards in the rules, I'll just give them 50gp"

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-27, 04:13 AM
And in 4e gold is power even more than in 3.x, if you want a magic item or use a ritual you need gold and very little else, at least in 3.x you still need XP and - more important - time, some of the more powerful magic items need almost literaly months, if not years, of work that make a little hard find a wizard willing to dedicate so much of his precious time to you just for some gold,
Has any PC Wizard actually had the time demands of making magic items impact them in the slightest? I ask that seriously because, as far as I know, no party would stand for "OK guys, you go adventure while I work on this awesome Sword +5 for a few months."

And XP costs are either crushing or trivial, depending on your DM; it would be suicidal to have underleveled characters running around a 3E (or 4E) game. One level might be doable, but XP costs only really hurt when you're two or more levels behind.

No, XP costs were a fudge to go from "making a Sword +1 is a quest in itself!" to "Welcome to Magic Mart;" it just didn't work out too well.

N.B. The Magic Mart Mentality exists in both/all editions of WotC D&D. Anyone who has played 1st or 2nd knows that making a magic item was a huge undertaking - you needed a laboratory/special altar, rare components gathered in a half-dozen quests, and to sacrifice an irreplaceable point of CON. Heck, the TSR books explicitly warned against the Magic Mart Mentality in its games - magic was a rare and powerful force, fraught with risk but promising great rewards.

Kaiyanwang
2009-05-27, 05:48 AM
No, XP costs were a fudge to go from "making a Sword +1 is a quest in itself!" to "Welcome to Magic Mart;" it just didn't work out too well.



I agree with this. I never liked so much the Magic Mart mentality and always reduced magic items drops.

In my 3rd edition two main campaings, I adjusted this in two ways:

- In one campaing, only the Wizard was the crafter (he liked the thing a lot). I assigned to him an amount of XP usable each level (yeah, I decided this BEFORE knowing of the artificer)

- In another campaing, all the party is composed of crafters/traders, but instead of XP they use reagents from monsters killed, as suggested by DMG. So, this time, crafting something interesting needs a quest (as it should be, IMHO).

Magic Shop didn't exist. Maybe some lucky trade with the thieves guild, or an old mage. Or a temple. But rare.

Anyway, IMHO, the XP thing is not plain wrong, but should be used as a limitation for spells, effects and magic items of a certain level of power or flavour (other examples of limitations could be Taint, Sanity, Ageing, and so on)


Said this, an apology for the Magic Mart: magic items can come easily, but, as I DM, i find quite easy destroy them too. But yeah, this does not make magic feel special - I thing that I consider very important for a fantasy RPG.

Aotrs Commander
2009-05-27, 07:04 AM
I play 4e. Note the word 'play', it's important. I play it because one of our other DMs wants to run it because it's much less set-up time for him to use pre-written modules and it's a break from me running.

I would not, under any circumstances run 4E if you paid me. It is diametrically opposite to what I want out of a set of rules mechanics, which is an open and customisable, simulationist system. I'll grant you 3.5 has flaws you can drive a Deathstar through, but at least it's got some vague basis in reality, which is where I like to start before jumping off into fantasy. (E.g., the near total absense of real-world animal stats in the 4E MM tweaked me for a start.)

The thing I hate above all other things (except Vampires and Shi'Ar) is "a wizard did it" or "it's just a story". 4E is entirely built on that, in that everything is game mechanics first, followed by occasionally, some lame attempt to justify them. It's not just not built the right way round for me. (Notably, before 3.x, my system of choice was Rolemaster. So that should give you an idea of where I'm coming from!) So, basically, playing 4E, I have to tune down my expections and suspension of disbelief to the same level as when playing, say HeroQuest or Fighting Fantasy. To me, the game just seems more 'cartoony' (and all or our group agrees).

I absolutely can't do that when DMing, however; it has to be 'right', because if it isn't, it drives me up the wall. Everything has to have an explanation, even if it's a far-fetched one. I like to see someone (myself or whoever is writing whatever media I'm curretnly experiencing) has put the thought into it. In essence, I'm happiest when people show me the working as it were.

My impressions of 4E are that it is a mechanically functional system. But that's about it. (Heck one of our players was griping about the minute of the system and this coming right after playing a 16th level 3.5 system...) We take the wosit out of it as we play, which provides us with some amsuement. ("Oh look, my cleric's best second level ability is not only outshone by the warlord's but that piece of equipment we picked up! Huzzah, I can be replaced by a suit of chainmail!") I'll grant you it's more mobile than 3.5, but as a wargamer, I have to say that is not always the same as more tactical. Perhaps as the game progresses and reaches higher level I'll be able to say more (we've only just hit level 2).

3.5 has flaws - numerous flaws - as mentioned, but I find it's core is the most mechanically superior of any RPG. And that's all I look for. I don't give a flying frag about the 'feel' of a set of rules unless I'm specifically playing a genera (e.g. Star Wars) and even then I prefer to adapt exisiting rules to get that feel. So, aside from D&D/D20 and Rolemaster, there's not really any other systems I care to use, since they mechanically do the job I want them too; flavour is, after all, mutatable! The bits I liked most about 3.5 (multi-classing, monsters and character done the same way) were the bits 4E got rid of. After all these years, I've got my own set of houserules, which I think are as good or better as other people's houserules (e.g Pathfinder, which I feel rather the missed the boat in a lot of ways.) Including ones of sufficent extent as to remove Vancian casting altogther.

Granted, 4E does have a few good ideas worth nicking (Solos, minions, short and extended rests, for example).

I shoudl perhaps add that 4E is not a bad system - it's still lightyears ahead of the bulk of RPGs, I'll grant you - but it's as far as I'm concerned - one that's not an improvement on 3.5.

shadzar
2009-05-27, 07:55 AM
Also: thanks to abundant non-combat sources of XP it is easier to figure out how all these high-level Classed NPCs came about.

You think non-combat XP is something new to 4th edition? :smallamused:

Jayabalard
2009-05-27, 07:59 AM
And that RP issue sounds odd. How did a skill challenge remove your roleplay opportunity?It specifies that those actions are resolved by dice roles rather than through arbitration based on roleplaying.


Also: thanks to abundant non-combat sources of XP it is easier to figure out how all these high-level Classed NPCs came about.It doesn't really explain it better than the 1e mechanic of XP for treasure would.

shadzar
2009-05-27, 08:05 AM
There are several reasons that I don't.

First: It is, by default, in the Forgotten Realms.

:smalleek: Waiter! I'll have what he's drinking!

The only thing that is FR is RPGA. 4th edition is rooted in Eberron. But I could be mistaken and Greenwood/Salvatore have spent the last several decades writing about warforged.

EarFall
2009-05-27, 09:07 AM
:smalleek: Waiter! I'll have what he's drinking!

The only thing that is FR is RPGA. 4th edition is rooted in Eberron. But I could be mistaken and Greenwood/Salvatore have spent the last several decades writing about warforged.

Might actually make Drizz't LESS one dimensional.... heck.. .even if he was a golem.

Disclaimer: I'm aware they're good books. I actually just think Drizz't himself is one of the poorest characters in the otherwise good series.

shadzar
2009-05-27, 10:37 AM
Might actually make Drizz't LESS one dimensional.... heck.. .even if he was a golem.

Disclaimer: I'm aware they're good books. I actually just think Drizz't himself is one of the poorest characters in the otherwise good series.

But a form of dark elf has always been a monster, the warforged was thrown into it as an abomination to craft Eberron as the foundation setting for future editions, since it is the one setting that WotC can completely control as it belongs to them after the contest that created it.

Just like the inclusion of gods in the books to try to define a default setting that has never been done directly in the PHB prior to WotC.

And then the gods have no purpose except to fill in a blank for some power that it doesn't matter what god it is because alignment doesn't mean anything and the gods don't even touch the mortal plane.

Purely inconsistent ideas in the creation of that monstrosity.

Artanis
2009-05-27, 10:38 AM
Are you kidding, right? Treasure parcels are even more strict than WBL , in 3.x if you kill a monster by the RAW you should find some appropriate treasure, in 4e you only find the parcels the GM put down for it, in 3.x PCs could (theorically) make a bit of money going around raiding orcs villages or something, in 4e you could kill a dragon and still find its hoard be empty, or if you find something there you will not find something else later because you already used your share of treasure parcels for that adventure.
Like V'icternus said, this is a problem with the DM.



It’s more interesting, however, to combine some parcels into larger hoards and leave some encounters with no treasure at all. Sometimes it’s a good idea to include treasures with no associated encounter, such as a hidden cache of gold or stashed item that the characters can find with careful searching


Remember that you can combine parcels to make some larger treasures. Try to find a balance between the excitement of finding a large treasure hoard and the regular reward of finding several smaller treasures. As a quick rule of thumb, over the course of eight to ten encounters, use one treasure hoard of three parcels, two treasures of two parcels each, and three treasures with a single parcel. That leaves two to four encounters with no treasure reward.
So the DMG CLEARLY and EXPLICITLY suggest doing exactly what you say you want.

V'icternus
2009-05-27, 10:45 AM
Yay, someone said my name!

...

I mean, yeah, it's true. The 4e DMG is all about presenting guidlines, to promote freedom for the DM. Obviously, if you're a level 18 character with a +2 Longsword, there's something wrong, but as the system doesn't generate it's own rewards, the system isn't to blame.

They suggest certain monetary ammounts of compensation for quests, and reccomend that this money be used on reward items as well as piles of gold. But, it's all done in reccomendation form, so a DM is free to give players 3,000gp and no items, or 3,000gp worth of items, or a pleasing mix of the two. It's a very "Up to you, DM!" system.

shadzar
2009-05-27, 11:15 AM
Like V'icternus said, this is a problem with the DM.



So the DMG CLEARLY and EXPLICITLY suggest doing exactly what you say you want.

Sadly the treasure parcel system is flawed in it method because it offers only that for giving out treasure, and is integral to 4th edition because you must have X +Y items per level because the system requires it in the terms of balance.

The system was known to be flawed in this way and why the wish-list of magic items was thrown in so that munchkins could get exactly the item they wanted for their uber-build characters, in this nursery school game that the players are spoon-fed everything they want. Remember you don't even have to ever show up to get XP and gain levels!

V'icternus
2009-05-27, 11:25 AM
Keep in mind, uber-characters are not much of an issue in 4e. With a set list of magical effects and conditions, there's not really much chance for a characters to become the classic "I can do anything" caster that used to exist. Now, anything one person can do, another can too. This means that there isn't "uber", there's only optimal, normal and sub-optimal. And the difference between them is generally much lower than the effect of effective strategy vs. hack and slash.

ericgrau
2009-05-27, 11:26 AM
If you go to www.wizards.com (the current owners of d&d) you'll find plenty of 4e people in the forums. But that's only because they screwed up the 2nd & 3rd edition forums so badly that people started going elsewhere. A lot of 3e people went here and to Enworld, though both forums still have some 4e. Perhaps more at Enworld. Meanwhile the 2e people from wizards.com and perhaps elsewhere banded together and made their own 2e specific forums which are highly successful. Eventually a small number of 3e people and even less 2e people returned to www.wizards.com when things got fixed, but not very many. www.penny-arcade.com's forums seems to be almost all 4e, probably because the website itself favors 4e and because that's a video game website. The nice thing about those forums is that it seems to be all campaigns and no rules debates. Other forums that are 4e focused seem to be a mix of both systems, while more general forums seem to lean towards 3.5e but still have a good deal of 4e threads.

Doug Lampert
2009-05-27, 11:30 AM
And in 4e gold is power even more than in 3.x, if you want a magic item or use a ritual you need gold and very little else, at least in 3.x you still need XP and - more important - time, some of the more powerful magic items need almost literaly months, if not years, of work that make a little hard find a wizard willing to dedicate so much of his precious time to you just for some gold,

Double the gold spent on AC in 3.5 and a mid level characater's AC increased by +4 or so if spent even vaguely sensibly. In 4th ed it increases by about 1 or less.

In which system does how much gold you have matter more? In which system did doubling the gold matter more to power? In which system does the gold give more power? Stop smoking crack. The fact that in 3.5 you have to find a large city to have a shop sell you the item or have some downtime to make it doesn't ballance the fact that the amount of gold is FAR more important to how powerful you are in 3.x than in fourth.

You need something FIVE TIMES as expensive to get an extra +1 bonus in fourth. In 3.5 this ranges from four times as expensive at worst at low levels on things where there's only one item that grants the bonus to less than 10% extra at high levels on things where there are multiple ways to do it.

If a +1 costs 10% of your budget in one system and 400% in the other and you think exact amounts of money matter more in the system which is 40 TIMES LESS SENSATIVE to changes in cash then you are beyond insane.

Want to give people 100% on resale in fourth, feel free, it won't substantially change their power level in fourth.

Do the math. At level 20 your total value of all items at 100% and all cash for a party of 5 is less than 6.43 million, that will buy everyone 3 level 23 items with almost nothing left over. If they went with only found items and didn't buy or make a thing then they'd have 2/3rds of their primary items at level 21+ for the SAME bonuses, and the rest would all be only one point worse, and they'd also have a bunch of cash and utility items.

Give them 99% in 3.x and you've screwed the power level and the system breaks (again). 4th ed is far far less sensative to variations in wealth.

Doug Lampert
2009-05-27, 11:36 AM
So it's a classic example of variables being cited as set in stone, I see.
No. The 10-40% markup is in the section discussing buying items. Where it also describes the availability of merchants and the like.

Your cite is in the section about making items and about the price to make them.

Specific trumps general. The rules on buying items are in the section on buying items, not that on making them. The section on making them says NOTHING about availability, the section on buying them says that when available a typical markup is 10-40%.

The default case for purchase is +10-40%, anything else is an exception.

DougL

Artanis
2009-05-27, 12:16 PM
Sadly the treasure parcel system is flawed in it method because it offers only that for giving out treasure, and is integral to 4th edition because you must have X +Y items per level because the system requires it in the terms of balance.

The system was known to be flawed in this way and why the wish-list of magic items was thrown in so that munchkins could get exactly the item they wanted for their uber-build characters, in this nursery school game that the players are spoon-fed everything they want. Remember you don't even have to ever show up to get XP and gain levels!
Why did you quote me? This has nothing to do with my post :smallconfused:

shadzar
2009-05-27, 12:44 PM
Keep in mind, uber-characters are not much of an issue in 4e. With a set list of magical effects and conditions, there's not really much chance for a characters to become the classic "I can do anything" caster that used to exist. Now, anything one person can do, another can too. This means that there isn't "uber", there's only optimal, normal and sub-optimal. And the difference between them is generally much lower than the effect of effective strategy vs. hack and slash.

Oh there are already people looking at broken or breaking things with the latest power sources and PHB as well the hybrid character rules.

I recall a warlock using two implements ...rod of corruption and the other one to just kill minions in the blink of an eye before errata was issued, so the problems are still there and they have more to balance in their interest of balance and more chances to mes up now if they miss anything the fourther they extend "core".

@Artanis:

You were the last person in that line of topic, so wanted to kep the topic flowing....like as if it was a mini-thread within the thread for people to follow the full discussion....or I clicked on the wrong post to quote. I have been known to do that. :smallredface:

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-27, 12:51 PM
You think non-combat XP is something new to 4th edition? :smallamused:

It doesn't really explain it better than the 1e mechanic of XP for treasure would.

People, people, please look at my statement:

Also: thanks to abundant non-combat sources of XP it is easier to figure out how all these high-level Classed NPCs came about.
TSR D&D had few classed NPCs - most were 0th level mooks who would get knocked over by a stiff breeze. The few Classed NPCs who hung around were clearly combatants - 10th level Fighters running fiefs, elite soldiers in their armies, and the Court Wizard who needed to raid dusty dungeons in order to increase his spellbook. Whether you gained XP from combat alone or also by looting dragon hordes, it was clear where the high-level Classed NPCs got their levels.

In WotC D&D, everyone has class levels; 3E has Commoners and 4E assigns levels to everything. However, the XP system did not adapt in 3E for this new reality. As I noted, non-combat XP is explicitly described as a "rare" occurrence and furthermore it is described in only the sketchiest fashion; yet you had Industrial Wizards churning out scrolls and 20th level Blacksmiths forging masterwork items. The best "system" I've found is the assumption that one year of life is equal to an equal CR encounter - which becomes silly really quickly.

In 4E, the mechanism of Skill Challenges is introduced to systematize non-combat XP. In other words, 4E added a standardized method for grading non-combat encounters and awarding XP. In terms of having a comprehensive system, this is a great boon; it joins the combat and non-combat aspects of D&D into one, unified, experience system.

This is about as clear a statement I can make.

N.B. Having a unified mechanical system provides certain aesthetic benefits for folks who enjoy having comprehensive systems, but it by no means makes one system "better" than another.
TSR D&D, for example, systematized very little of the D&D world - pretty much everything that wasn't an attack roll, saving throw, or HP damage needed to be given an ad hoc ruling by the DM. Many DMs, in fact, wrote up extensive binders of house rules to create actual rules (rather than ad hoc rulings) for common events that TSR D&D refused to adjudicate. It could still be a really fun game.

IMHO, if you're making a modern RPG you really should have a mechanical system that can resolve any occurrence having to resort to DM Fiat. Whether it is a table, a coin flip, or a rotating system of judges, there should be a consistent system. Early RPGs had the excuse of literally founding the medium; it takes awhile to figure out what making a "RPG" really entailed. Modern systems really have no excuse.

Serpentine
2009-05-27, 12:58 PM
Now, anything one person can do, another can too....this is meant to be a good thing? :confused: To me, the ideal party is one in which everyone has something that noone else can do, or not as well, or only in very different ways. It's up to the DM to make sure that every character has their opportunity to use it. As far as I can tell (and I haven't looked all that deeply into 4e, nor am I really a 3.5 expert), that's exactly what 3.5 was aiming for - with varying degrees of success - and almost exactly what 4e is trying to avoid.
I guess you can add that to my list of "reasons why I'm not interested in 4e"...
edit: And the non-combat XP would be an example of one of the things I'd like to look at properly and consider nicking.

Artanis
2009-05-27, 01:02 PM
@Artanis:

You were the last person in that line of topic, so wanted to kep the topic flowing....like as if it was a mini-thread within the thread for people to follow the full discussion....or I clicked on the wrong post to quote. I have been known to do that. :smallredface:

Ah, gotcha. :smallsmile:

Kylarra
2009-05-27, 01:03 PM
No. The 10-40% markup is in the section discussing buying items. Where it also describes the availability of merchants and the like.

Your cite is in the section about making items and about the price to make them.

Specific trumps general. The rules on buying items are in the section on buying items, not that on making them. The section on making them says NOTHING about availability, the section on buying them says that when available a typical markup is 10-40%.

The default case for purchase is +10-40%, anything else is an exception.

DougLI already responded to this, but what the hell, I'll say it again. Taking a "might cost 10-40% more" and inferring "it always costs 10-40% more" is saying "okay optional variances are now always in effect."
Interestingly enough, they have ways to shaft you, but no ways to increase your sellback beyond the same 20% you get from disenchant (excluding the 25gp cost).

You'll end up with one of two mentalities either way. Either buying items is pointless in which case => Enchant item ritual. Or buying items isn't pointless in which case => enchant item ritual is pointless.

Slight variance depending if 25gp >= potential 10-40% markup I suppose.

V'icternus
2009-05-27, 01:13 PM
Really, the most effecient way to make money off of an item is to lie. Find some rich idiot and bluff him out of his money. (Can lead to fun, such as assassin's, ninja's, or a revenge driven rich idiot)

The thing is, PC's aren't supposed to take avtantage of economics and aren't supposed to open up their own item-making business. They're supposed to dungeon crawl, kill BBEG's, loot dragon hoards and have fun. If your idea of a fun game of D&D involves market prices and ecnomic factors such as supply and demand, as well as the overall profit margins of making and selling items, then you should probably play M&M. Markets and Money.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-27, 01:18 PM
To me, the ideal party is one in which everyone has something that noone else can do, or not as well, or only in very different ways. It's up to the DM to make sure that every character has their opportunity to use it. As far as I can tell (and I haven't looked all that deeply into 4e, nor am I really a 3.5 expert), that's exactly what 3.5 was aiming for - with varying degrees of success - and almost exactly what 4e is trying to avoid.
I guess you can add that to my list of "reasons why I'm not interested in 4e"...
You have that reversed.
In 3E, anyone could take levels in any class - and many classes shared important class abilities to this end. Plus, magic could imitate practically any class role - heck, some class features (animal companion) could imitate entire classes (fighters).

In 4E, class segregation is very strict. First, each class is placed in a general role which dominate in certain aspects of combat and and weak in others. Strikers, for example, do far more damage than any other class but tend to have weak defenses (and defensive abilities) and definitely have less HP. Secondly, each class has certain class features that cannot be learned by a character of a different class; these features provide the defining features of each class. As an example, while Rogues have tremendous damage output with Combat Advantage, they do very little without it; Rangers do moderate (but consistent) amounts of damage all the time.
That describes the combat roles of each party. In addition, each 4E class has access to Utilities that shape the non-combat abilities of a given character; wizards have flexible utilities that deal with illusion and transportation while rogues mainly have utilities that enhance their Stealth or Thievery abilities.

An argument can be made that the simplified skill system allows "everyone to do the same things" but that is not entirely accurate.
To misquote Vaarsuvius - being able to do something is not the same as being good at it. Skill Training combined with synergistic ability scores allows certain classes to be naturally better than others in some areas - Wizards are great with most knowledge skills while Rogues are best at most DEX-based skills. Thanks to scaling DCs for many checks, this disparity between classes is preserved even at high levels; only mundane checks (like climbing a rope) remain static - which doesn't bother me very much. Finally, class-based utilities can make some classes uniquely superior at certain skills than others; Rogues, for example, can take a utility that allows them to ignore the -10 penalty for pickpocketing in combat - nobody else can.

3E, on the other hand, has a skill system that lets anyone learn practically any skill - with several classes and feats (Able Learner) that remove even those restrictions. Class features that affect skills (Trapfinding) can be picked up through level dips or variant classes or spoofed with magic (Detect Traps). In addition, the universal static DCs for important checks (such as Tumble) allows for the automatic accomplishment for any character which has enough synergy and a bare minimum of points to invest.

EarFall
2009-05-27, 01:21 PM
Really, the most effecient way to make money off of an item is to lie. Find some rich idiot and bluff him out of his money. (Can lead to fun, such as assassin's, ninja's, or a revenge driven rich idiot)

The thing is, PC's aren't supposed to take avtantage of economics and aren't supposed to open up their own item-making business. They're supposed to dungeon crawl, kill BBEG's, loot dragon hoards and have fun. If your idea of a fun game of D&D involves market prices and ecnomic factors such as supply and demand, as well as the overall profit margins of making and selling items, then you should probably play M&M. Markets and Money.

I could not disagree more with this. Every edition prior (starting with 1e) has involved more than one aspect, and it's a huge beef I have with 4e. Not all the game should be a combat. I want to exist in a world that makes sense. In a world where I can technically do what i want. I do not want a wargame when I play D&D. When I play 4e, I accept that I'm playing a Wargame, and I have a lot more fun of it. I don't think "time to D&D" I think "Time for a tactics game" and it's still fun, but way different.

AgentPaper
2009-05-27, 01:42 PM
Okay, I really don't want to get myself embroiled in the edition war again, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents:

Economy - 4E is an improvement over 3.5. Not because it's more realistic, but because they figured out that a realistic economy is really complex, and they would have to make an entire new rulebook and all sorts of systems to have one make any sense at all. So, they designed the economics of the game for ease of use and to provide consistent gameplay. If you want a realistic economy, the best way to do that without making some giant computer simulation is to just eyeball and estimate as the DM. Which isn't really something they can tell you how to do in a book. (And the people most likely to be bothered about this, people who have studied economics, are also those who would do this estimation and such best anyways)

Items: By RAW, I don't like the magic item system. 3.5 isn't much better, but it is better. However! The item system is in the end an improvement for me, solely because of how easy it is to turn it into a far, far better system of styles and techniques (see link in my sig) which adds a lot of flavor and customization to characters.

4E as a wargame: While 4th edition is better at being a wargame than 3.5, that doesn't mean it has to be focused around combat. You wouldn't want to use the system in a game with little to no combat, but nothing in the rules disallows roleplaying or doing things other than combat. If you're finding it hard to RP or do anything but more combat in a 4E game, that's probably a problem with your DM, not the system.

ghost_warlock
2009-05-27, 01:42 PM
You have that reversed.
In 3E, anyone could take levels in any class - and many classes shared important class abilities to this end. Plus, magic could imitate practically any class role - heck, some class features (animal companion) could imitate entire classes (fighters).

In 4E, class segregation is very strict. First, each class is placed in a general role which dominate in certain aspects of combat and and weak in others. Strikers, for example, do far more damage than any other class but tend to have weak defenses (and defensive abilities) and definitely have less HP. Secondly, each class has certain class features that cannot be learned by a character of a different class; these features provide the defining features of each class. As an example, while Rogues have tremendous damage output with Combat Advantage, they do very little without it; Rangers do moderate (but consistent) amounts of damage all the time.
That describes the combat roles of each party. In addition, each 4E class has access to Utilities that shape the non-combat abilities of a given character; wizards have flexible utilities that deal with illusion and transportation while rogues mainly have utilities that enhance their Stealth or Thievery abilities.

An argument can be made that the simplified skill system allows "everyone to do the same things" but that is not entirely accurate.
To misquote Vaarsuvius - being able to do something is not the same as being good at it. Skill Training combined with synergistic ability scores allows certain classes to be naturally better than others in some areas - Wizards are great with most knowledge skills while Rogues are best at most DEX-based skills. Thanks to scaling DCs for many checks, this disparity between classes is preserved even at high levels; only mundane checks (like climbing a rope) remain static - which doesn't bother me very much. Finally, class-based utilities can make some classes uniquely superior at certain skills than others; Rogues, for example, can take a utility that allows them to ignore the -10 penalty for pickpocketing in combat - nobody else can.

3E, on the other hand, has a skill system that lets anyone learn practically any skill - with several classes and feats (Able Learner) that remove even those restrictions. Class features that affect skills (Trapfinding) can be picked up through level dips or variant classes or spoofed with magic (Detect Traps). In addition, the universal static DCs for important checks (such as Tumble) allows for the automatic accomplishment for any character which has enough synergy and a bare minimum of points to invest.

Well, technically, in 4e any character can still gain access to pretty much whatever ability they want. A fighter can get his grubby mits on the rogue utility to pickpocket in combat if he likes, for the cost of two feats.

As far as class abilities are concerned, most of those are exclusive, but the latest books are rolling out multiclass feats that give access to class abilities, such as a warlock's shadow walk ability and even warlock's curse (fairly limited in use, though).

And even without multiclassing, there are some classes that are simply not as strict in their role as others. For instance, if I so desire I can create a warlock (traditionally a striker) that can serve as a backup controller (pretty much any warlock can get zones and AoEs), a defender (although this role is admittedly much stronger with multiclassing), or even a leader (thanks to some healthy vestige pact boons and individual power augments).

Yeah, I'm relying on a lot of warlock examples. So sue me. :smalltongue:

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-27, 01:55 PM
Well, technically, in 4e any character can still gain access to pretty much whatever ability they want. A fighter can get his grubby mits on the rogue utility to pickpocket in combat if he likes, for the cost of two feats.
The trick here is that any character can only get one such Utility from another class - ever. And, to gain that ability you must sacrifice one of your own equal-level abilities. Pretty steep and, as you've noted, very limited.

Likewise, being a "back-up" in a secondary role is never as good (or even close) as being a primary member of that role. Warlock Controlling is not nearly as flexible as Wizard Controlling; at best a Warlock could assist the Wizard in controlling - he could never take over.

By drawing the lines as cleanly as they have, it is obvious that 4E attempts to let each class have its own place where it reigns supreme - so far, it has been fairly successful, IMHO.

I won't get into the 3E counter-examples; I'm pretty sure they are obvious to readers of this forum :smalltongue:

ChelArmgo
2009-05-27, 01:57 PM
Ahhh.... 4.0
Now, I know I am repeating many before me when I say that it feels too much like an MMO. And it does. On top of that there are many more problems with the system, than there were with 3.5. Being a DM for only a little over 2 years now, I took a look at the system. I was more than slightly distraught. :sigh:
Not only would I have to change most of the system myself to suit my ROLE players, the aspect of ROLL playing was disgusting to me. When does an encounter end? if you are fighting 16 orcs and a have killed all but two and a second wave of orcs comes your way, is it the same encounter? Is it a new encounter? Or is it a quasi-pseudo mix of two encounters? And if it is two separate encounters that means I have my encounter powers back, correct?

As a player, I like to be a magic user on occasion. I read the wizard and literally wept for about 20 minutes. And the alignments! I happen to have a few well played chaotic good characters. My best played character is a lawful evil pirate captain(She converts nicely over to pathfinder).

All in all fourth edition is a good system for those who want to turn off WOW on their computers and play WOW on their table tops, sans races of coarse. (Actually they have a Warcraft RPG for table top... Very 3.5ish. I love it. But I ramble...)

It is just not for me. I found a new RPG that I am in love with. That does in fact fix some of the 3.5 bugs, and does not deem thousands of dollars of 3.5 merchandise useless. (Thank you Paizo Publishing.)

As I said it just isn't for me. Good luck finding a group, I mean that honestly. I hope you can have fun in your chosen game. :smallsmile:

shadzar
2009-05-27, 02:01 PM
People, people, please look at my statement:

TSR D&D had few classed NPCs - most were 0th level mooks who would get knocked over by a stiff breeze. The few Classed NPCs who hung around were clearly combatants - 10th level Fighters running fiefs, elite soldiers in their armies, and the Court Wizard who needed to raid dusty dungeons in order to increase his spellbook. Whether you gained XP from combat alone or also by looting dragon hordes, it was clear where the high-level Classed NPCs got their levels.

In WotC D&D, everyone has class levels; 3E has Commoners and 4E assigns levels to everything. However, the XP system did not adapt in 3E for this new reality. As I noted, non-combat XP is explicitly described as a "rare" occurrence and furthermore it is described in only the sketchiest fashion; yet you had Industrial Wizards churning out scrolls and 20th level Blacksmiths forging masterwork items. The best "system" I've found is the assumption that one year of life is equal to an equal CR encounter - which becomes silly really quickly.

In 4E, the mechanism of Skill Challenges is introduced to systematize non-combat XP. In other words, 4E added a standardized method for grading non-combat encounters and awarding XP. In terms of having a comprehensive system, this is a great boon; it joins the combat and non-combat aspects of D&D into one, unified, experience system.

This is about as clear a statement I can make.

N.B. Having a unified mechanical system provides certain aesthetic benefits for folks who enjoy having comprehensive systems, but it by no means makes one system "better" than another.
TSR D&D, for example, systematized very little of the D&D world - pretty much everything that wasn't an attack roll, saving throw, or HP damage needed to be given an ad hoc ruling by the DM. Many DMs, in fact, wrote up extensive binders of house rules to create actual rules (rather than ad hoc rulings) for common events that TSR D&D refused to adjudicate. It could still be a really fun game.

IMHO, if you're making a modern RPG you really should have a mechanical system that can resolve any occurrence having to resort to DM Fiat. Whether it is a table, a coin flip, or a rotating system of judges, there should be a consistent system. Early RPGs had the excuse of literally founding the medium; it takes awhile to figure out what making a "RPG" really entailed. Modern systems really have no excuse.

:smallconfused: TSR had all classed NPCs. Everyone was 1st level (unless playing the Treasure Hunt module). The only thing that made you a PC was being of a PC race, and going out to adventure under the control of a player.

:smallconfused:

Skill challenges are nothing new to D&D, jsut the name and idea of being able to roll for everything in the game and rarely needin to think for oneself outside of which power to apply, or which skill to roll for, and which door to walk through.

Under TSR there was plenty of times for interaction with NPCs that was not combat resolution that could gain XP.

Chapter 8: Experience

Variable Goals

In addition to the constant goals listed above, every game session will have some variable goals. Most of these come from the adventure. Some may come from the players' desires. Both types can be used to spur players on to more effective role-playing.


Story Goals

Story goals are objectives the DM sets up for an adventure. Rescue the prince, drive away a band of marauding orcs, cleanse the haunted castle, find the assassin of the late queen, recover the lost Gee-Whiz wand to save the world--these are all story goals.


Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

While the Story goals does imply combat may be involved it also shows that you are getting XP for things outside of combat. You have completed a portion of your continuing story. So you got XP for each combat, and then your story XP. So supposed that the first Variable goal gave XP for interaction in towns where roleplaying not combat was involved comes about prior to any acceptance of a mission. Then add to that that you took on a mission and gain not only XP, but possibly other things for completing this mission. Neither of which took combat. Again the story may have had combat in it, but doesn't always mean it will. The story goal doesn't grant XP for the combats either, but for the story.

In 4th edition terms this would be quests. Get the Dragon's Eye from Riff-Raff's guild maze in order to get the Rod of Sevrille.

:smalleek: A skill challenge before 4th ever existed! :smalleek:

Many other places could hold for geting XP, and interacting with NPCs (1's level characters) without having to fight. The problems was some groups wanted to fight anything in a combat situation, rather than take advantage of the, now named skill challenges under 4th edition, other avenues for completing tasks.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-27, 02:01 PM
Not only would I have to change most of the system myself to suit my ROLE players, the aspect of ROLL playing was disgusting to me. When does an encounter end? if you are fighting 16 orcs and a have killed all but two and a second wave of orcs comes your way, is it the same encounter? Is it a new encounter? Or is it a quasi-pseudo mix of two encounters? And if it is two separate encounters that means I have my encounter powers back, correct?
An Encounter ends after you take a Short Rest. A Short Rest is defined as 5 minutes with only minimal activity.

Any effect that lasts until the end of an Encounter lasts no more than 5 minutes at most, unless otherwise noted.

Hope that helps :smalltongue:

AgentPaper
2009-05-27, 02:05 PM
I really wish people would stop describing 4E as "WoW on the tabletop" as if it was the most natural thing in the world. I mean, it's not like I think people don't have lots of good reasons to not like 4E, but whenever I see that it just makes it harder to take the rest of their argument seriously. Which sucks because, like I said, the rest of those reasons tend to be good.

Serpentine
2009-05-27, 02:13 PM
Oh gawd, the alignments! I'd forgotten about that DX Yeah... I'd been saying that WotC believed that Chaos was less good/more evil than Law, and now I've been vindicated in that claim! I like the alignment system, I mostly view it as a tool for roleplaying (alignment-based spells are, admittedly, problematic for me, and I should really houserule them a system). The 4e abandonment of perfectly viable alignments... I loathe it. I despise it. If I could not only take what I want from it but leave it ragged and bleeding on the ground, I would, simply because of that benighted, arbitrary, ideological alignment cropping.

ChelArmgo
2009-05-27, 02:14 PM
I really wish people would stop describing 4E as "WoW on the tabletop" as if it was the most natural thing in the world. I mean, it's not like I think people don't have lots of good reasons to not like 4E, but whenever I see that it just makes it harder to take the rest of their argument seriously. Which sucks because, like I said, the rest of those reasons tend to be good.

It is most often to referred to as "wow on the tabletop" mostly because that is the most played MMO. The system they have built is a lot like said game. I feel as though the at-will powers and encounter powers are just like my hot keys. Obviously the round is the "global cool down" and who doesn't hate the five minute reload on their back stab. :smallbiggrin: I only make mention to it as such because I know Hasbro wanted the game compatible with their online plans.

AgentPaper
2009-05-27, 02:17 PM
It is most often to referred to as "wow on the tabletop" mostly because that is the most played MMO. The system they have built is a lot like said game. I feel as though the at-will powers and encounter powers are just like my hot keys. Obviously the round is the "global cool down" and who doesn't hate the five minute reload on their back stab. :smallbiggrin: I only make mention to it as such because I know Hasbro wanted the game compatible with their online plans.

Ah, finally, someone who actually backs this up. You can't imagine how happy I am. I still disagree, but at least I can see where people (or at least you) are coming from now. :smallbiggrin:

monty
2009-05-27, 02:21 PM
The trick here is that any character can only get one such Utility from another class - ever. And, to gain that ability you must sacrifice one of your own equal-level abilities. Pretty steep and, as you've noted, very limited.

Likewise, being a "back-up" in a secondary role is never as good (or even close) as being a primary member of that role. Warlock Controlling is not nearly as flexible as Wizard Controlling; at best a Warlock could assist the Wizard in controlling - he could never take over.

By drawing the lines as cleanly as they have, it is obvious that 4E attempts to let each class have its own place where it reigns supreme - so far, it has been fairly successful, IMHO.

Of course, that also makes it much more difficult to have small parties and/or ones with unusual class mixes - I've seen a number of threads around the forum saying things like "How do I handle my party of 3?" or "Group with no defender" (made up based on what I've seen; I have no idea if there were actual threads with those titles).

In 3.X you could just multiclass or pick up an appropriate spell/item to cover the missing party role in most cases. No cleric? Someone multiclasses for a level or two, or the rogue UMDs a wand of CLW. No wizard? Cleric chooses appropriate domains, or someone multiclasses for a level or two, or the rogue just UMDs through it again. No rogue? Cleric casts find traps and gets a couple of Search-boosting items, or takes the Kobold domain, or the wizard just picks up a reserve feat and blasts everything that looks like a trap. No fighter? Since everyone can do good damage if they're built for it, and a meatshield isn't really necessary anyway, the other three can all pick up the slack. Or the cleric/druid just buffs into the stratosphere and does a better job of it anyway.

AgentPaper
2009-05-27, 02:30 PM
@monty

4E verison: No defender? Have everyone wear heavier armor than normally, and perhaps have the toughest pick a multiclass defender feat. No leader? Have everyone pick up a leader multiclass feat, bring along more potions. No controller? Play dragonborn, pick abilities that hit more than one enemy. No striker? No problem. Strikers do damage and everyone already does damage.

Sure, the party isn't quite as well off as if they had someone for each role, but they shouldn't be, because otherwise why even bother bringing along anything but a party of wizards? :smallamused:

ChelArmgo
2009-05-27, 02:31 PM
Well of coarse I am going to back up what I say. And it is perfectly fine that you disagree. I am fine with agreeing to disagree. I believe that fourth edition has done exactly what they planned on it doing. Which was to bring players from the MMO realm into their fold. Now I have been roleplaying D&D and other systems since I was 11. I enjoy taking a look at new systems and finding different elements that I enjoy. I was sad to discover that I did not really find much I liked in this edition. So, my circle and I have respectfully said no thank you to the new edition.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-27, 02:36 PM
Of course, that also makes it much more difficult to have small parties and/or ones with unusual class mixes - I've seen a number of threads around the forum saying things like "How do I handle my party of 3?" or "Group with no defender" (made up based on what I've seen; I have no idea if there were actual threads with those titles).
Small Parties with unusual role mixes are the most problematic 4E party, but they are hardly insurmountable problems.

A 3-member party can work perfectly well with 1 Defender, 1 Leader, and 1 Striker; there are IIRC 4 Defender Classes (Fighter, Paladin, Warden, Swordmage), 5 Leader Classes (Warlord, Cleric, Bard, Artificer, Shaman), and 6 Striker Classes (Rogue, Ranger, Warlock, Avenger, Barbarian, Sorcerer) so far. In addition, there are at least 2 main variations of each class listed. Compared to the "who wants to be Cleric" problem (which can be solved by magic items and skills, not class selection), it is not so restricting.

Your description of the Caster Party is pretty much what I was talking about in terms of 3E's lack of class roles. Well said :smalltongue:

Lamech
2009-05-27, 02:40 PM
People, people, please look at my statement:

TSR D&D had few classed NPCs - most were 0th level mooks who would get knocked over by a stiff breeze. The few Classed NPCs who hung around were clearly combatants - 10th level Fighters running fiefs, elite soldiers in their armies, and the Court Wizard who needed to raid dusty dungeons in order to increase his spellbook. Whether you gained XP from combat alone or also by looting dragon hordes, it was clear where the high-level Classed NPCs got their levels.

In WotC D&D, everyone has class levels; 3E has Commoners and 4E assigns levels to everything. However, the XP system did not adapt in 3E for this new reality. As I noted, non-combat XP is explicitly described as a "rare" occurrence and furthermore it is described in only the sketchiest fashion; yet you had Industrial Wizards churning out scrolls and 20th level Blacksmiths forging masterwork items. The best "system" I've found is the assumption that one year of life is equal to an equal CR encounter - which becomes silly really quickly.


You get xp for overcoming challenges not beating them up in combat. Sneaking past the minatour is just as valid as killing past it. Think of how many situations could be overcome by brute force, that are solved by all sane people with out combat. Convincing a teacher to give that they screwed up on grading, getting a drunk person to leave you alone, getting out of a speeding ticket ect.

And in both 4th and 3.5 not all npc's use the xp system. Followers or cohorts in 3.5 and presumably others. In 4th I believe it was explicitly said most people don't; if they did thoes skill challenges would leave them way to high. And in 2nd it was very explicit that xp could be gotten with out combat. Their were little tables of xp awards that each class could get. (Industialist wizards that churned out magic items for their lord for example.) This complaint fails.

ChelArmgo
2009-05-27, 02:41 PM
@monty

4E verison: No defender? Have everyone wear heavier armor than normally, and perhaps have the toughest pick a multiclass defender feat. No leader? Have everyone pick up a leader multiclass feat, bring along more potions. No controller? Play dragonborn, pick abilities that hit more than one enemy. No striker? No problem. Strikers do damage and everyone already does damage.

Sure, the party isn't quite as well off as if they had someone for each role, but they shouldn't be, because otherwise why even bother bringing along anything but a party of wizards? :smallamused:

:amused:

Hmmm.... sounds familiar. "LFG LVL- flashadin tank spec." "LF healer." "LF DPS(striker)"
"well boys we have no healers so everyone stock up on potions, It's time to take on the crab."

LOLs... Not picking, just making a point.

shadzar
2009-05-27, 02:45 PM
Ah, finally, someone who actually backs this up. You can't imagine how happy I am. I still disagree, but at least I can see where people (or at least you) are coming from now. :smallbiggrin:

Did you miss this from over a year ago? Bill, Scott, and someone else explain how 4th is connected to WoW...

http://g4tv.com/mmoreport/videos/21318/The_MMO_Report_4th_Edition_DD_Special.html

nightwyrm
2009-05-27, 02:45 PM
*shrug*

4e:WoW::3e:Diablo2::2e:Final Fantasy

Artanis
2009-05-27, 02:55 PM
I really wish people would stop describing 4E as "WoW on the tabletop" as if it was the most natural thing in the world. I mean, it's not like I think people don't have lots of good reasons to not like 4E, but whenever I see that it just makes it harder to take the rest of their argument seriously. Which sucks because, like I said, the rest of those reasons tend to be good.
I'm the same way. I respect peoples' reasons for disliking 4e, but no matter what side they're on, I can't stand it when people try to support their points with flat-out misinformation, even if they don't mean to. It immediately and completely discredits somebody's entire position unless (like ChelArmgo) they can expand on it and explain why it's legitimate after all.

In fact, that's why I finally broke down and started posting in this thread: Sebastian's post that I replied to on the last page had information that was plain, flat-out false.


*stuff about multiclassing being more limited than it can look at times*
Don't forget that different classes rely on different stats. Sure, a Wizard could MC into Barbarian and get some "whack things with a giant axe" powers...but he'd suck at it so badly that he'd be wasting two or three power slots and three or four feats. And sure, a Fighter could MC into Wizard and start throwing Sleep around...but good luck getting it to stick with an 8 INT and no implement.

And don't even get me started on shooty Rangers :smallwink:



*stuff about party composition*
This is true, characters are indeed less versatile in many ways. But don't forget that all classes have at least one, and sometimes two secondary roles. They'll never be as good as a "real" member of that role, but they can pick up the slack.

No Defender? Shamans, Avengers, and Barbarians can all pick up the slack, and as mentioned, Warlocks can (kindasorta) do a bit of defending. None of them are as good as a real defender, but if you need somebody to take hits for the others - and survive doing so - you've got options.

No Leader? Druids, Invokers, and Paladins are all classed as secondary leaders, and Paladins can get really, really good at healing if they put their mind to it. Vestige Pact Warlocks get a disturbing number of leader abilities as well. None of them will heal like a Cleric or move allies around like a Warlord, but they can suffice if you're careful. Also, there's always potions.

No Controller? There's only three or four classes that aren't blatantly some degree of controller. None of them are going to lock down a battlefield the way a Wizard will, but if you need something debuffed or force-moved, odds are somebody can do something.

No Striker? There's plenty of secondary strikers, and good tactics and battlefield control can make up for the damage deficiency.

AgentPaper
2009-05-27, 03:12 PM
:amused:

Hmmm.... sounds familiar. "LFG LVL- flashadin tank spec." "LF healer." "LF DPS(striker)"
"well boys we have no healers so everyone stock up on potions, It's time to take on the crab."

LOLs... Not picking, just making a point.

Eh, I just don't see how this is any different from other tabletop games. All games use the "tank, DPS, healer" archetypes, even if they don't say it. 4E just doesn't beat around the bush on it. The only way you get out of those archetypes is by having everyone be good at everything. (combat wise) *shrug*

For example, in earlier editions of DnD, the archetypal Fighter, Wizard, and Cleric party is pretty much the precursor to what became Tank, DPS and Healer in MMOs. The rogue is a slapped-on addition that is really only there to counter traps, and doesn't really provide anything to combat, except a bit of sub-optimal damage.

ChelArmgo
2009-05-27, 03:13 PM
I'm the same way. I respect peoples' reasons for disliking 4e, but no matter what side they're on, I can't stand it when people try to support their points with flat-out misinformation, even if they don't mean to. It immediately and completely discredits somebody's entire position unless (like ChelArmgo) they can expand on it and explain why it's legitimate after all.

In fact, that's why I finally broke down and started posting in this thread: Sebastian's post that I replied to on the last page had information that was plain, flat-out false.

Unfortunately for most, they do not take time or research into the matter before they spew their ideas about. Now I am in fact an avid watcher of the MMO report. (I am an all around nerd, you see) I did hear what the developers themselves had to say about design fourth edition to be similar to an MMO. My major problem with this is putting RPG back into MMORPG. By all means I am a ROLE player. I am definitely a decent ROLL player as well at times. (Dang purple dice are cursed.) I can build a monster character and know how to use it. But it sometimes takes flavor from the game. So, if done correctly I could possibly be persuaded into playing a 4E campaign. That is, of coarse, with the supplement of many house rules.:smallcool:

ChelArmgo
2009-05-27, 03:26 PM
Eh, I just don't see how this is any different from other tabletop games. All games use the "tank, DPS, healer" archetypes, even if they don't say it. 4E just doesn't beat around the bush on it. The only way you get out of those archetypes is by having everyone be good at everything. (combat wise) *shrug*

True enough, of some. But a party of three rogues (if built correctly, mind you) can be very effective. The only tag that I have a problem with in all honesty is the "LEADER" tag. But then again I play with a group that very rarely uses the diplomacy skill check, mostly because we are role players. If you say something rude to the king and roll a natural 20, it doesn't mean he is going to over look your slight. Mostly there is no leader in my parties. Sometimes the barbie has a good idea. Other times the whole party make a democratic decision to hold the barbie back from killing the gnome. We let the rogue lead while in the dungeon, and the ranger lead while we are in the woods. And if we are in someone's home town, they take lead. Declaring a character as a Leader makes the rest of the party feel like gumpies in a Dictatorship. Everyone should have their say. If the rogue wants to go right because of a gut feeling and the cleric wants to go left because she heard a holy relic was hidden down the right corridor we resolve the situation and move on. The Wizard doesn't just decide at that point, just because he is the leader. Let me ask you this, who is the leader of Drizzt's party?

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-27, 03:30 PM
True enough, of some. But a party of three rogues (if built correctly, mind you) can be very effective. The only tag that I have a problem with in all honesty is the "LEADER" tag.
Replace "Leader" with "Coordinator."

The Leader Archetype is focused on healing his allies and improving their ability to do what they do. They are by no means charismatic (see Tactical Warlord) nor necessarily Diplomatic powerhouses.

:smallconfused: Is there really this much misinformation about 4E out there?

EDIT: Also, a TSR D&D party of Thieves would be laughed out of their first dungeon. In 3E the class of your character doesn't matter - unless that class is "caster" :smalltongue:

shadzar
2009-05-27, 03:35 PM
:smallconfused: Is there really this much misinformation about 4E out there?

EDIT: Also, a TSR D&D party of Thieves would be laughed out of their first dungeon. In 3E the class of your character doesn't matter - unless that class is "caster" :smalltongue:

Are we including DDI game table information in that question about 4th? :smallwink:

Why in TSR? Was your DM an arse that didn't know how to play the game?

Sorry Bill, but you did NOT require one of each clas to play the game with a competent DM.

AgentPaper
2009-05-27, 03:37 PM
True enough, of some. But a party of three rogues (if built correctly, mind you) can be very effective. The only tag that I have a problem with in all honesty is the "LEADER" tag. But then again I play with a group that very rarely uses the diplomacy skill check, mostly because we are role players. If you say something rude to the king and roll a natural 20, it doesn't mean he is going to over look your slight. Mostly there is no leader in my parties. Sometimes the barbie has a good idea. Other times the whole party make a democratic decision to hold the barbie back from killing the gnome. We let the rogue lead while in the dungeon, and the ranger lead while we are in the woods. And if we are in someone's home town, they take lead. Declaring a character as a Leader makes the rest of the party feel like gumpies in a Dictatorship. Everyone should have their say. If the rogue wants to go right because of a gut feeling and the cleric wants to go left because she heard a holy relic was hidden down the right corridor we resolve the situation and move on. The Wizard doesn't just decide at that point, just because he is the leader. Let me ask you this, who is the leader of Drizzt's party?

A group of 3 rogues can do just as well in 4E, I would say. They would have to build themselves differently from a rogue in a more normal party, but it can be done, mostly through use of stealth and killing things really, REALLY fast. As for the "leader" tag, I thought that as well at first, but really it's the best choice of name for the role they could give. Why? Because "healer" or "support", while descriptive, tend to make people think that the class is the type to just sit back and heal while everyone else does cool stuff. Which isn't what they should be doing. They're also natural leaders, but that doesn't mean you have to do what he says no matter what. If your group didn't have a leader before, they still won't.

ChelArmgo
2009-05-27, 03:38 PM
Replace "Leader" with "Coordinator."

The Leader Archetype is focused on healing his allies and improving their ability to do what they do. They are by no means charismatic (see Tactical Warlord) nor necessarily Diplomatic powerhouses.

:smallconfused: Is there really this much misinformation about 4E out there?

EDIT: Also, a TSR D&D party of Thieves would be laughed out of their first dungeon. In 3E the class of your character doesn't matter - unless that class is "caster" :smalltongue:

As I said I have an issue with the tag... Not what is behind it. I believe they could have worded their game better. If it was your first time playing and you read only that you specific character was a leader type, how would you play that character. And that is what happens. Because not everyone is going to read the entire book before they grab their buddies to play a brand new game.

Artanis
2009-05-27, 03:42 PM
The class descriptions state exactly what they mean by how it goes about the role in the same box where it says the class's role. It also explains it when describing the roles earlier in the book.

If you know that there is a role called "Leader", then it's virtually impossible not to know what they mean by it.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-27, 03:44 PM
As I said I have an issue with the tag... Not what is behind it. I believe they could have worded their game better. If it was your first time playing and you read only that you specific character was a leader type, how would you play that character. And that is what happens. Because not everyone is going to read the entire book before they grab their buddies to play a brand new game.
Are they going to read the blurb after the "Leader" tag, to see what that means? It's a single paragraph found on every single character front-page.

@shadzar: Because Thief was, as noted, an extremely weak classes. They had practically no armor, little HP, and next-to-nothing damage. Provided they didn't get knocked off by a trap they couldn't find, a solid blow from pretty much anything could kill Thieves up through LV 3. At least a party of Wizards could build a house outside the dungeon and zap a few kobolds every day :smalltongue:

No, TSR D&D had even stricter party composition rules than WotC D&D - and Clerics almost always had to be heal-bots. In some of my games, we did Rock-Paper-Scissors to see who had to be the Cleric for a given one-shot :smallbiggrin:

ChelArmgo
2009-05-27, 03:50 PM
I have actually witnessed a game where this was an issue hence I brought it up. Some of my friends invited me to a 4E game. So I accepted but only to watch. This seventeen year old kid, whined every time he did not get to make the decision because he was a "leader." Hence I have an issue with the tag. Mind you I know this kid is a bit of a whiner anyhow, so I never play when he does. I'm not arguing the mechanics of it I'm am just saying, that as a witness to stupidity I have an issue with the tag.

V'icternus
2009-05-27, 03:54 PM
Well then, it looks like the best solution is to not be stupid. :smalltongue:


Seriously though, all it takes is maybe a bit of explaining, and at least one person with experience sitting at the table. (Or even just someone who's properly read the rules, and regularly visits forums like these)

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-27, 03:55 PM
I'm not arguing the mechanics of it I'm am just saying, that as a witness to stupidity I have an issue with the tag.
Heh.

Man, if I had a beef with anything that an idiot screwed up once, I would be angry all the time :smalltongue:

EDIT: Alternative Scene
Warlord: OK, I'm going to shift in front of the orcs to keep them from getting to the Wizard.
Paladin: Hey! Stop defending people! I'm the Defender. I smack the Warlord out of the way.
Ranger: Hey! Stop striking people! I'm the Striker!
Wizard: Hey! Stop trying to control what people do! I'm the Controller!
DM: :smallsigh:

V'icternus
2009-05-27, 04:02 PM
EDIT: Alternative Scene
Warlord: OK, I'm going to shift in front of the orcs to keep them from getting to the Wizard.
Paladin: Hey! Stop defending people! I'm the Defender. I smack the Warlord out of the way.
Ranger: Hey! Stop striking people! I'm the Striker!
Wizard: Hey! Stop trying to control what people do! I'm the Controller!
DM: :smallsigh:

*Dies laughing, then laughs himself back to life, only to die again. Repeated 2D8 times*

I can actually see that happening...

Not in real life, but in a webcomic or something. Or, you know... if all your players are total n00bs.

I<3Bed
2009-05-27, 04:03 PM
Erm... I was just wondering, since this thread seems to have alot of people who know about both 3.x and 4e, which would be better for someone who has had very little experience playing either, but would like to get into playing tabletop RPG's? Like... me?

Also, is there a thread around here that gets newbies started?

Starbuck_II
2009-05-27, 04:07 PM
Heh.

Man, if I had a beef with anything that an idiot screwed up once, I would be angry all the time :smalltongue:

EDIT: Alternative Scene
Warlord: OK, I'm going to shift in front of the orcs to keep them from getting to the Wizard.
Paladin: Hey! Stop defending people! I'm the Defender. I smack the Warlord out of the way.
Ranger: Hey! Stop striking people! I'm the Striker!
Wizard: Hey! Stop trying to control what people do! I'm the Controller!
DM: :smallsigh:

I like the gag :smallbiggrin:

Man, due to PHB 2 people wanted to change classes in my game.
Now, our Cleric became a Warden, our Ranger Twfing become Beast maser, our rogue became a Sorceror, and we got a new player who became a bard.

The good: we still have 2 healers (leaders: Warlord who didn't change and new Bard).
The Bad: How I can explain why they suddenly are different.

Lamech
2009-05-27, 04:08 PM
I played a heal-bot and support in a rolemaster campaign and had a quite a bit of fun. Why do people have so much trouble with support classes? Does the massive need for a heal-bot in rolemaster change something? And vanilla is the best. Also 4th ed is like Eve-Online.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-27, 04:10 PM
Erm... I was just wondering, since this thread seems to have alot of people who know about both 3.x and 4e, which would be better for someone who has had very little experience playing either, but would like to get into playing tabletop RPG's? Like... me?

Also, is there a thread around here that gets newbies started?
If you must play an edition of D&D, I would (naturally) recommend 4E for the following reasons:

(1) It is an elegant, comprehensive system
This makes it very easy to pick up and play.

(2) It is currently supported
This means books will be easy to find IRL and you'll more likely find players (or be able to make them - see #1)

(3) It is continually being updated
There is very little you need to get to become "current" on the edition and new stuff will be coming out in the future.

If you are not particularly attached to D&D, then the New "World of Darkness" games by White Wolf also have solid systems but are more RP focused than Combat focused. Or, if you happen to enjoy improvisation you can pick up an "Indie RPG" - the books are cheap and while limited in scope, the games are easy to learn and to play. Bliss Stage (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlissStage) is an example.

As for getting started - yes, there are some threads about, or you can try out some Play-by-Post (PbP) games in the Play-by-Post section of this forum.

@Lamech - There are certainly people who enjoy playing pure support classes, but for many, they'd prefer to take a more active role in combat. In particular, the AD&D Cleric had to devote most of their spellcasting resources to memorizing healing spells (no spontaneous casting) in order to get their allies through a dungeon; later incarnations of the Cleric have made it easier for the Cleric to support their allies without sacrificing their utility in combat.

shadzar
2009-05-27, 04:15 PM
@shadzar: Because Thief was, as noted, an extremely weak classes. They had practically no armor, little HP, and next-to-nothing damage. Provided they didn't get knocked off by a trap they couldn't find, a solid blow from pretty much anything could kill Thieves up through LV 3. At least a party of Wizards could build a house outside the dungeon and zap a few kobolds every day :smalltongue:

No, TSR D&D had even stricter party composition rules than WotC D&D - and Clerics almost always had to be heal-bots. In some of my games, we did Rock-Paper-Scissors to see who had to be the Cleric for a given one-shot :smallbiggrin:

You had poor DMs as well did anyone you talked to if you could not play a party of thieves. Likewise there was NOTHING that dictated what the party composition was in TSR editions other than other players. Those who were most likely the ones to become the char-ops flunkies, or munchkins of today. The ones that didn't even like D&D, but jsut wanted to play hank'n'slash. Well 4th edition is perfect for you. Break out your DDM and play the little war game with bloated rules after they cancelled the actual skirmish game.

:smallwink:

kc0bbq
2009-05-27, 05:03 PM
You had poor DMs as well did anyone you talked to if you could not play a party of thieves. You'd never get anywhere without a massive fudging of the rules or dice. Did you ever play 1st/2nd ed.? Thieves were frail. They had to be helped along massively in the rules just to make them viable. You could not have a three thief party. They'd be slaughtered by two kobolds.

I love how your responses have been only to insult people.

Matthew
2009-05-27, 05:22 PM
If you must play an edition of D&D, I would (naturally) recommend 4E for the following reasons:

(1) It is an elegant, comprehensive system
This makes it very easy to pick up and play.

(2) It is currently supported
This means books will be easy to find IRL and you'll more likely find players (or be able to make them - see #1)

(3) It is continually being updated
There is very little you need to get to become "current" on the edition and new stuff will be coming out in the future.

If you are not particularly attached to D&D, then the New "World of Darkness" games by White Wolf also have solid systems but are more RP focused than Combat focused. Or, if you happen to enjoy improvisation you can pick up an "Indie RPG" - the books are cheap and while limited in scope, the games are easy to learn and to play. Bliss Stage (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlissStage) is an example.

As for getting started - yes, there are some threads about, or you can try out some Play-by-Post (PbP) games in the Play-by-Post section of this forum.

And naturally I shall come out of left field and recommend Labyrinth Lord (http://www.goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.htm) or Swords & Wizardry (http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/corerulesproducts.htm) for your D&D needs. Very simple to play free simulacrums of out of print editions! :smallbiggrin:



@Lamech - There are certainly people who enjoy playing pure support classes, but for many, they'd prefer to take a more active role in combat. In particular, the AD&D Cleric had to devote most of their spellcasting resources to memorizing healing spells (no spontaneous casting) in order to get their allies through a dungeon; later incarnations of the Cleric have made it easier for the Cleric to support their allies without sacrificing their utility in combat.
This is a tricky (and interesting) point. If the cleric is using all his slots to memorise healing spells, then the party is probably doing something wrong (relying too heavily on combat likely), but then some campaigns are organised like that. Up until about 1995(ish) only certain levels had healing spells, which made for an interesting dynamic.



You'd never get anywhere without a massive fudging of the rules or dice. Did you ever play 1st/2nd ed.? Thieves were frail. They had to be helped along massively in the rules just to make them viable. You could not have a three thief party. They'd be slaughtered by two kobolds.

I love how your responses have been only to insult people.

That is because you don't fight kobolds with thieves... Seriously, I have played all versions of D&D, and much prefer the pre D20 editions.

shadzar
2009-05-27, 05:22 PM
You'd never get anywhere without a massive fudging of the rules or dice. Did you ever play 1st/2nd ed.? Thieves were frail. They had to be helped along massively in the rules just to make them viable. You could not have a three thief party. They'd be slaughtered by two kobolds.

I love how your responses have been only to insult people.

Because the accusations about the system have been insulting maybe?

I love how people insult a system because they cannot see how to make something work.

Any DM knowing he has a 3-man party already knows he must adjust for the sake of the game and tone down any encounters. Most things were written with 4~6 players in mind.

On top of that you have to consider the party you are making the encounter for. Just because many DMs may have been TPK'ers, doesn't mean it cannot and wouldn't work.

I wouldn't play in any game with onyl 3 players to begin with.

I have played in an all thief game and it wasn't a TPK around every corner because the 5 of us planned out tactics rather than trying to have a thief character running around like a fighter.

Just because some people can't doesn't make it impossible.

Think where we would be if everyone thought that controlling a single person rather than an army for a game was not possible. We would be here never having D&D, and not have to worry about 4th edition.

Any party grouping can work in any edition of D&D, unlike MMOs; and if it doesn't for you, then there is something you are doing wrong, as either players or DMs aren't playing that game correctly for the type of game it is.

I would wager people were trying to only play hack'n'slash gauntlet runs with thieves, then no it wouldn't work to well, because that isn't what the thief did.

It dumbfounds me how people aren't thinking about what they are saying, rather than just reading off some numebrs in "stat blocks" and say it cannot be done. The funniest part is those same people that told me I didn't have a right to not like 4th editoin after reading it and must play it to know or not and readint he stat blocks wasn't enough to decide.

Pot<-->kettle.

You don't need to fudge rules or dice to run a party of thieves. Just think through it both the players and DM.

AgentPaper
2009-05-27, 05:29 PM
One thing I forgot:

Alignments - Yes, the 3.5 alignments are better. I don't know why they decided to remove chaotic good and lawful evil. However, their mistake was to not remove the entire damn thing from the game. Alignments are a terrible system. It puts people ideologies into little boxes, and encourages people to make characters that make no sense as real people. There are people who can make good, well-rounded people in the alignment system, but more likely than not they could have made just as good of a character without the alignment system, instead of trying to figure out if a strict pirate captain is lawful evil because she's strict, or chaotic evil because she robs people. :smallannoyed:

Still, I prefer 4E again here, because I ignore the alignment system altogether in both editions, and 4E doesn't have any rules that affect or are affected by the character's alignment.

Artanis
2009-05-27, 05:39 PM
I don't know why they decided to remove chaotic good and lawful evil.
They didn't. If you read the descriptions, it's pretty clear that they removed the various neutral alignments, then just renamed LE "Evil" and CG "Good"