Claymore

Do you really think that stuff? Do you want an argument?

I don't guy a lot of the things you are saying about 4E and this isn't a edition war so much as me wanting to explain some things.

At the end of the day, of course, it's your group so do as you please. I do think there are a lot more things that the "at wills" and "per encounter" powers that are really good about 4E and could be used in 3.X. Basically, ideas I would take back to prior editions because the ideas are good.

edg

From:

Okay, you didn't answer if you wanted a rebuttal so I am going to do so anyway. I don't think I will change your mind about changing systems but I do hope I change your mind about 4E, if nothing else to relook at it.

4E has no more reliance on battle mats than any previous version. At the end of the day, the DM has to tell the players what to do. I do that all of the time, even with using Masterplan. "Okay, you can move here without provoking an AoO or you can provoke and move here and get flanking." So, it's no different, imo. The difference is how much is on the players versus the DM.

4E is a different system. No argument there. It's not an MMO. What it did was shift the emphasis from items to class powers. What this means is that the classes are on a more level footing. In 3.X or earlier, an unsurprised and prepared wizard wins. Period. That's not the case in 4E and what that allows is a more dramatic and fun fight, imo. Remember how, at high levels, there is little for a single class fighter to do? Now, that's not the case. They have martial powers to do things. They still won't throw a fireball but they are a lot more effective and have a lot more choices.

Um, constrictions? Waaaay back in 1E, I remember being told I had to play the cleric because the group needed a healer. How is this any different? They are more formally defined but it's no different than 1E suggesting 2-3 fighters, 1-2 clerics, a thief and a magic user, imo. Further, now that they have defined them, the various classes are *better* at what they are supposed to do. Remember when the only way to stop a monster, by the RAW, was to have enough fighters to put out front? Now the fighter has a power to stop any monster that ignores him to try and get past him. It's what he was there to do anyway and now he's better at it.

Complexity - This one is admittedly tough to argue. It is more complex in some ways and that's a good thing. However, what it does do is try and make everything more fun for everyone. Remember having a 3E rogue and you fight undead and constructs? At that point, you are a very bad fighter, not a rogue. They get rid of that in 4E, so the rogue player is always effective against one specific opponent. Again, that's the archetype of the rogue, imo, and defining it that way makes the character better at what they are supposed to do. Further, once you get a hang of it, it's no different than gaining the cool weapon or ring, figuring out how that works and then using in role playing.

Again, I don't think I am going to convince you and if 3.X works for your group, that's great. All I wanted to do here was point out a few things that I think you were mistaken about and point out how I think it works instead.

I hope you don't mind.

edg

From:

So can can play 4E entirely without battlemaps or diagrams? It's not quite the impression I got from the rules, especially reading some of the powers which were reliant on precise positioning.

I think your 3E wizards were facing very feeble opponents. My poor wizard would have a tough time of it meeting opponents alone! I do like the fighter powers, but it does really "define" what previous edition fighters could do in freeplay with a bit of imagination.

Hey, 1E was a long, long time ago - heck, we've been playing 3E+ for a decade! I just see the 4E rules as being a lot more prescriptive that the 3.5 rules. Maybe it's just a way of guiding newbies. As for the classes being "better" - I suppose it depends on how you use them and how you role-play. I'm not convinced that a 4E fighter would be any better at interacting with the innkeeper than a 3.5E fighter.

From:

While technically one can play 4E without battlemats and the like, in reality, you lose some of the game if you do. Many powers (= class abilities) are directly geared towards tactical positioning and maneuvering (on hit shift 1 square, etc).

4E classes have narrow roles. If your concept doesn't fall within that narrow scope, you're out of luck. Along with that, the things characters can do is just not flexible.. but there's a twist: melee characters in 3.X weren't to begin with, so 4E is a step up for them in flexibility.. on the other hand, casters in 3E are very seriously limited. If you like 3E mages for their versatility and oddball ways they can solve problems, you'll hate 4E wizards.

Skills/non-weapon proficiencies are an improvement in 4E, in that anyone can have an equivalent score compared to anyone else (though they may have to spend one or two feats to do it). Fewer of them too. I think 4E wins in this particular detail.

Magic items in 4E are generally pretty flavorless, and almost pointless. In 3E, they could give you capabilities you didn't have before (especially for non-casters).. in 4E, they improve what you can already do a little bit, with some little exceptions here or there. If you like how 3E does magic items, you'll hate 4E.

I could go on and compare them further, but what I'm getting at is that 3E and 4E are very different games, with their own strengths, and that both are fun but in different ways.. and my opinion is that if you enjoy one style of d&d, keep with it. No reason to change.

I will add one thing: my 4E DM has said more than once that prep for him is about 10X less work for 4E than 3E. Not really a factor for you, but it may be there's stuff from the 4E design that you can mine to make your DMing job easier for your next campaign :)

From:

seawasp

I agree about the essential difference between 4e and prior editions. It's a much larger change even than the shift to 3e.

The old Arduin system was what we used to use for spell points, or for simplicity you can just use spell levels -- add up the total number of levels of spells you can cast and mix and match as you like. So if you could cast 4 first, two second, and one third level spell normally, you'd have 8 spell levels and could cast 8 firsts, or two thirds and a second, etc.

At higher levels some people find they like to restrict the number of spell levels total, but we never had much trouble with it.

From:

I took a look at the official spell point option in the SRD, and it seems usable. I'm going to give it a try and see how it goes...

From:

argonel.livejournal.com

There are some really good ideas in 4th edition and a bunch of rewrites to make it more accessable to new players. However a lot of that accessability comes from assuming a balanced party and much fewer options for character creation.

Have you looked at Pathfinder from Paizo publishing? (AKA 3.75)

From:

I recommend Pathfinder for those who want to stick with 3.0/3.5. I've looked through it, and I was impressed.

4.0 is definitely a different game. Good, but different, you're right on that.

A spell point system can lead to balance issues. In 3.5, the Psion (in the PsiHB) uses that method, it's worth checking out.

The Book of Nine Swords gives you a taste of 4E in 3E... an early playtest incarnation of 4E at any rate.

From:

I know about some balance issues in psionics, so I'll be alert for one in spell points.

From:

Thanks, I'll check it out, it sounds interesting.

From:

phaezen.livejournal.com

4e plays allot better than it reads.

I recommend looking at various blogs, such as newbiedm, chattydm, critical-hits, geeksdreamgirl, penny arcade and others to see what people are doing with the system. I have personally run some interesting games, a Cthulhuesque horror story arc being my favourite.

Oddly enough, the power system, which you like, is the most radical departure from previous editions.

There is no requirement for having all 4 roles filled, the DMG does go into the pro's and con's of various combinations. Not too sure on your comment on the limitations of skills?

Also, @Argonel not much in the way of limited character options, choose a character concept and see which class/race fills it best. 25 classes, each with a unique feel can hardly be called limiting concept.

That all said, Claymore hope you have an awesome funfilled campaign no matter which system you use, there are plenty of options available out there.

From:

argonel.livejournal.com

Really, how do I make a quick moving brawler, who also deals with traps and locks then. If it slots neatly into one of the provided classes and roles it is easy. Jack of all trades or specialist characters are much harder in 4th edition.

From:

?? Can you explain Jack of all trades or specialist characters are much harder in 4th edition? I don't get what you are trying to say.

Thanks!

edg

From:

I don't have a char builder with me but that sounds something like the Brawny Rogue Build with the Brutal Scoundrel or Ruthless Ruffian tactics.

Otherwise, hybrid classes cater to the DIY player character.

I play rogues. Generally the halfing Aerialist or Trickster Rogue with Artful Dodger tactics. The double-team of a Brutal Scoundrel with an Artful Dodger can be deadly to foes as our DM has often found out.

From:

phaezen.livejournal.com

The obvious choices are any of the rogue builds, Brutal Scoundrel if you prefer more of a bully type character or trickster for a more finessed build.

Other options are a melee ranger trained in thievery or a brawler fighter (from martial power 2) also trained in thievery. Further afield, there some interesting multi-classing and hybrid options, also non martial characters such as the assassin, barbarian or avenger depending on flavour.

JOAT characters are easily doable, especially if you don't mind dropping feats into skill training and spread your powers out a bit. A bard with their lack of multi-classing restrictions is especially viable.

As for specialist, that comes down to focussed feat and power choices, same as previous editions.

From:

Dealing with traps and locks in 4E is actually easy: take the feats "skill training: perception" and "skill training: thievery". You'll want a decent Wis for the 1st, and a decent Dex for the 2nd. Unlike 3E, that stuff isn't tied to the Rogue class.

Perception has the added bonus in that it's the skill you use to avoid being surprised and listen/look for stuff at a distance and some other things.. I generally take this whenever possible when I play 4E :)

4E classes are pretty narrow though in terms of actual class powers, that's very true. It's a lot harder to get around that compared to previous editions (if you can at all). Which sucks.

From:

argonel.livejournal.com

Clearly they added more options for 4th edition since last time I looked at it. Sounds like wotc has dialed back a little bit on the you willplay the game our way and you will like. But I think I will stay with the shadowrun game I am runni ng and thwe gurps game I am playing in for now. Don't feel like learning another new system.

From:

I think it would also help to add that we have some players in the group who're only just getting used to 3.5E, and to switch to a new one, which'll basically involve learning an entirely new system, will be less than fun for those players. Our campaign should cater to their needs as much as to the needs of those who like the detailed mechanics of it all.

From:

And if that's the case, they are only casual players and it took a while to get them up to speed in 3.X, or your group wants to play that in general, I agree.

As I said above, though, 4E has done a great job of being more fun, something that 3.x only achieved for me in the 5-8 level range. Of course, your mileage may vary and all.

Sorry if this is too argumentative.

edg

From:

With all due respect, I think you may be taking Claymore's "criticisms" of 4E a little too personally.

From:

Hmmm. Wow! First response I get from you in years and it wasn't as positive as I could have hoped. *sigh*

I don't mind what game you guys play. (I mean, it's not up to me in any way and I know that.) In fact, 4E has given me more respect for previous versions of DND than any previous one. I have always loved the current version of DND better than the last. I don't know why for sure but that's how it has happened.

If his post was tongue in cheek, then I did miss it and I apologize. But there are inaccuracies in it and I merely wanted to make sure those inaccuracies were known before dismissing 4E. I do think that 4E is the best casual version of DND. Yes, it has some complexities to learn, as I am finding out with my new to role playing player, but it's a very good heroic fantasy system.

Again, my apologies.

I hope all is well with you!

Take care!

edg

From:

I have nothing against 4E, and I don't think Claymore does either: the main focus of his post was how switching to 4E would negatively impact one of the groups we currently play with, not a broad criticism of the gaming system's merits. You've mentioned "inaccuracies" in the post, but you haven't taken into consideration that it mentioned, several times, that the concerns about switching over were with respect to a certain group of players. Obviously, if referring to a different group, the criticisms would be different.

From:

And I do agree that you and he know the group better and what would be better. However, part of the reason I commented is because I think 4E is much better for casual gamers and that's what you seem to have. But I could be completely wrong on that. It's just my take on it. I don't know your group.

How are you? What's new? How are things? I hope they are well!

edg

From:

At this point, we have casual gamers who are familiar with 3.5. 4th Ed. would mean casual gamers (including the DM) who aren't familiar with the system, and that could be quite a stumbling block. For those who are dedicated, it might be worth it, but I'm not convinced that's be the case here.

From:

We've had fun whatever we've played, 1st Ed. right up to 3.5, in whatever levels, so I don't think that'll be an issue.

From:

I agree with the system switch issues. Even though 4e is fairly simple and easy to pick up, in our regular games we still have players who battle over the powers and what they can do or when they can be used.

The power/attack cards do help with the "maths" of what do I add and how much damage do I do though without having to hunt all over the sheet for the bonuses. (I vaguely remember my PCGen sheet being setup with similar blocks though.)

From:

I play 4e. I play it regularly and even run a weekly game. I like it.

BUT I do agree that it is not for Verdant.

Having played in the game (even though it was years since I was there), I have a bit of a different insight into just how much 4e would work with it and IMO it wouldn't because the concept of the game is not a 4e concept.

Things I do like about 4e though:
* Everyone has special things they can do
* Everyone has their assigned roles/jobs but can still help out in the "grey" areas where classes overlap
* It is simpler to gen a char and level up than I found 3.5 to be (used PCGen all the time so I wouldn't forget to do something.)

It can lend itself to a role-playing experience - my 4e Eberron game shows that - but I don't see it working for the concept of Verdant. It is not currently that well suited for games with a higher focus on skill-checks/investigation/socialising over combat. To make it work for those requires a lot of work on the part of the DM (I have tried and am still trying!)

As for map play. Yes the powers talk about squares which translate to feet for range, damage blasts and pushing/sliding/shifting around which don't translate well to theatre of the mind but these concepts were already in 3.5 as I witnessed and played in the Holy Theun Empire game I was in in Durban.

I play a variety of systems and feel each has its place. 4e would not work for Verdant without some serious restructuring of characters and world. (I tried to port Faye Morgainne and I couldn't really bring her across.) This is also very evident in the changes that have had to be made in Forgotten Realms to get the magic to work the new way and there are articles about it form when 4e was first released - with lots of complaints.

I am intrigued by the spell point system. Perhaps running spells like they do at cons - so many slots but nothing memorised, so more like bards/sorcerers as opposed to ruled wizards.

These are just my thoughts as an ex-player in Verdant and a current player/DM of 4e.

From:

This wasn't for the Verdant group (we decided against switching to 4E in Verdant right now for the very reason you describe - porting characters across), it's for the other group we play with.

Interesting points, though, and very applicable to the other group too!

From:

Thanks Pen - nice to have the insight from someone who has played with us (well, Melancthe and me, at least).

From:

cj-ruby.livejournal.com

>4E breaks compatibility with older versions of D&D; it's essentially a new system,<

I agree. WotC kept the brand D&D and built a new system. If you're looking to maintain the 3.5 experience I would move to Pathfinder which is backward compatible to 3.5.

>the whole thing about "memorizing" spells every day<

I never liked this and "house ruled" it out of my games. I use a modified spell-point system.

From:

Thanks for the comments; Pathfinder does sound interesting.

From:

What is the current make-up of the party?

We found recently that the roles are not set in stone and that strikers can have controller builds etc.

From:

Well, we've diced up new characters; I'm not sure what they are yet.

From:

Dicing 'em up already, huh? Damn that must've hurt ;)

From: (Anonymous)

OK no one here may care what I think but 3.5 is the only one for me and my friends I looked at the 4th and as a DM hated it no hard feelings to anyone who likes it but there are different kinds of DM's and 3.5 is very flexable when it comes to that to me they limit the power of the DM in 4.0 and like someone said it limits the magic weapons and to me makes it harder for me to have fun DMing......huuh.Anyway heheh you know my friend has 4.0 and tried DMing a game for me but I hated it way to much....(he also suchs at DMing but I looked at the books for like 2 weeks day in and day out in Iraq and found out that it's not for me or for alot of people that like 3.5 and under. I'll leave it at that for now ..... hmm wierd but I came to this sight by mistake looking to see if anyone had a stat on a claymore the sword but I might just have to go with it being the same as a greatsword now...anyway *bow* thank you for listening.

From: